Master Index of Archived Threads


Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

seawolf17 Jan 28 2011 09:00 AM

I have no idea what it is, but the Twitterverse is going crazy.

Ceetar Jan 28 2011 09:00 AM Re: Big News!

seawolf17 wrote: I have no idea what it is, but the Twitterverse is going crazy. It's kinda weird. Unless they figured out how to make Tom Seaver 25 again, there's really only one (two) things that I imagine would be treated in this regard with teasing and what not.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2011 09:01 AM Re: Big News!

It's probably this: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15470 (Or am I being immodest?)

Ceetar Jan 28 2011 09:02 AM Re: Big News!

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It's probably this: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15470 (Or am I being immodest?) Actually, I was just about to post that.

metirish Jan 28 2011 09:03 AM Re: Big News!

What's it about anyway?....my twitter is not going crazy....Rubin is posting rambling quotes of the Mets decade all morning....

seawolf17 Jan 28 2011 09:03 AM Re: Big News!

Considering the timing, it SHOULD be the UMDB update, but you know it won't. It's going to be eclipsed by that Perez/Castillo/Ike Davis for Pujols trade.

Ceetar Jan 28 2011 09:04 AM Re: Big News!

metirish wrote: What's it about anyway?....my twitter is not going crazy....Rubin is posting rambling quotes of the Mets decade all morning.... one of the reasons I don't follow him. Ted Berg and Cerrone and I think Eric Simon tweeted big news happening in..well, a couple of minutes ago?

seawolf17 Jan 28 2011 09:04 AM Re: Big News!

Ted said "in thirteen minutes" about sixteen minutes ago, so he's a big fat liar.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2011 09:14 AM Re: Big News!

SNY not reporting anything.

Ceetar Jan 28 2011 09:15 AM Re: Big News!

Benjamin Grimm wrote: SNY not reporting anything. I think we're waiting on Matt Cerrone to type up the post, but who knows. Ted Berg worries he may have overhyped it.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2011 09:16 AM Re: Big News!

Who is Ted Berg? Is he an Ed Price wannabe?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 28 2011 09:16 AM Re: Big News!

I'm gonna punch Ted Berg in the neck.

Edgy MD Jan 28 2011 09:18 AM Re: Big News!

My money's on Wilpon eating an Olvier Perez contract sammich. Eitehr that or new info on Nancy McKeon.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 28 2011 09:21 AM Re: Big News! Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 28 2011 09:27 AM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Who is Ted Berg? Is he an Ed Price wannabe? SNY blogger dude. Actually pretty funny, and generally seems to have his head screwed on straight regarding things Metly (and non-Metly, too).

seawolf17 Jan 28 2011 09:23 AM Re: Big News!

Edgy DC wrote: My money's on Wilpon eating an Olvier Perez contract sammich. Ollie is my guess also.

Edgy MD Jan 28 2011 09:23 AM Re: Big News!

At least until that neck punch comes.

MFS62 Jan 28 2011 09:26 AM Re: Big News!

seawolf17 wrote: I have no idea what it is, but the Twitterverse is going crazy. While we're waiting, I got about ten posts deep into this thread.... then had to go back to the top. Twitterverse? Is there such a word, or does Wolf get some huge kudos for making it up? Later

metirish Jan 28 2011 09:26 AM Re: Big News!

Something about Minaya?, that would hardly constitute big news though.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2011 09:33 AM Re: Big News!

metirish wrote: Something about Minaya?, that would hardly constitute big news though. The Mets want Minaya back: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/sports/F ... 93724.html (but this is yesterday's news)

batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2011 09:35 AM Re: Big News!

What about this? Oliver Perez: Collins: Perez to enter spring as a starter http://www.rotoworld.com/content/player ... 791&spln=1

Ceetar Jan 28 2011 09:38 AM Re: Big News!

maybe a trade? Reyes extension?

Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2011 09:44 AM Re: Big News!

Ceetar wrote: maybe a trade? Reyes extension? I think it would have to be something like that to qualify as "big news." But who knows? I'm not convinced that this "big news" is going to amount to anything at all.

metirish Jan 28 2011 09:44 AM Re: Big News!

Shinjo turns 369 today?.....as retweeted by Ó Súilleabháin in Boston.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2011 09:45 AM Re: Big News!

Could it be something about an All-Star Game at Citi Field? Or is that already a done deal?

MFS62 Jan 28 2011 09:46 AM Re: Big News!

Since we're speculating - I'll say "Dickey Extension." (If there ever was a pitch lobbed up there for Fman to knock out of the park, that was it.) Later

Ceetar Jan 28 2011 09:48 AM Re: Big News!

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Could it be something about an All-Star Game at Citi Field? Or is that already a done deal? not a done deal, but Ted Berg has tweeted recently that it's practically done, so I doubt he'd hype that as big news. They're waiting for a press release, so it's at least as big as Hu signing.

Gwreck Jan 28 2011 09:49 AM Re: Big News!

No offense to Seawolf who (I presume) didn't invent it, but "Twitterverse" is possibly the dumbest internet-related made-up word ever, except of course for the utterly moronic "Blogosphere."

seawolf17 Jan 28 2011 09:51 AM Re: Big News!

Gwreck wrote: No offense to Seawolf who (I presume) didn't invent it, but "Twitterverse" is possibly the dumbest internet-related made-up word ever, except of course for the utterly moronic "Blogosphere." I invented neither word, but I do enjoy the word "Twitterverse."

Ceetar Jan 28 2011 09:51 AM Re: Big News!

Gwreck wrote: No offense to Seawolf who (I presume) didn't invent it, but "Twitterverse" is possibly the dumbest internet-related made-up word ever, except of course for the utterly moronic "Blogosphere." Some people embed personal twitterverses into their blogospheres.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2011 09:52 AM Re: Big News!

I'd say that official confirmation from MLB that the Mets will host an ASG in the near future is very big news, even if somewhat anti-climactic.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2011 09:53 AM Re: Big News!

seawolf17 wrote: Gwreck wrote: No offense to Seawolf who (I presume) didn't invent it, but "Twitterverse" is possibly the dumbest internet-related made-up word ever, except of course for the utterly moronic "Blogosphere." I invented neither word, but I do enjoy the word "Twitterverse." Because it sounds like Twatterverse.

Edgy MD Jan 28 2011 10:16 AM Re: Big News!

I don't think I feel particuarly dumb when I use "blogosphere." Let me check. Blogosphere. Blogosphere. Nope.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 28 2011 10:23 AM Re: Big News! Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 28 2011 10:23 AM

Joel Sherman says Wilpons looking for financial partners. Is this the news? [url]http://twitter.com/#!/Joelsherman1/status/31039393686884352 no, I doubt it.

metirish Jan 28 2011 10:23 AM Re: Big News!

Mets are for sale EDIT....I got a bit excited... refer to above post

Edgy MD Jan 28 2011 10:24 AM Re: Big News!

Wall St rumblings Wilpons looking for partners to help financially with #Mets If true, Madoff stuff more real then Wilpons have admitted 3 minutes ago via web Retweeted by 6 people .Joelsherman1 Joel Sherman Maybe.

metirish Jan 28 2011 10:26 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Release The release was sent out at a few minutes ago – here it is in full: Fred Wilpon, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the New York Mets, and Jeff Wilpon, Chief Operating Officer of the New York Mets, issued the following statement: As Sterling Equities announced in December, we are engaged in discussions to settle a lawsuit brought against us and other Sterling partners and members of our families by the Trustee in the Madoff bankruptcy. We are not permitted to comment on these confidential negotiations while they are ongoing. However, to address the air of uncertainty created by this lawsuit, and to provide additional assurance that the New York Mets will continue to have the necessary resources to fully compete and win, we are looking at a number of potential options including the addition of one or more strategic partners. To explore this, we have retained Steve Greenberg, a Managing Director at Allen & Company, as our advisor. Regardless of the outcome of this exploration, Sterling will remain the principal ownership group of the Mets and continue to control and manage the team’s operations. The Mets have been a major part of our families for more than 30 years and that is not going to change. As we have said before, we are totally committed to having the Mets again become a World Series winner. Our fans and all New Yorkers deserve nothing less.

TransMonk Jan 28 2011 10:27 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I've got $37. How much of a stake will that get me?

Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2011 10:27 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I guess that's it. Doesn't exactly get my pulse racing.

metirish Jan 28 2011 10:28 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Well , it's a bit of a damp squib isn't it?

seawolf17 Jan 28 2011 10:29 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

The CPF needs to be a minority partner. I'm in for $37 too. We'll only need... /crunches numbers ... about 162,000 other people or so.

Ceetar Jan 28 2011 10:31 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Boring. Any new partner they took on would have less relevance on our lives than Saul Katz. Is the idea here to make a couple extra bucks to cover what they might have to pay in the lawsuit without affecting the business as a whole?

Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2011 10:32 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

seawolf17 wrote: The CPF needs to be a minority partner. I'm in for $37 too. We'll only need... /crunches numbers ... about 162,000 other people or so. That multiplies out to about $6 million. I would assume that the Wilpons are looking for a lot more than that. What are the Mets worth these days? Anyone have an idea?

seawolf17 Jan 28 2011 10:33 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I was just guessing on numbers. 1% of a $600 million franchise, divided by $37 a person. I have no idea where I came up with that number, though.

Edgy MD Jan 28 2011 10:33 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Maybe we can go halvsies with "The Happy Recap."

Ceetar Jan 28 2011 10:33 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Benjamin Grimm wrote: seawolf17 wrote: The CPF needs to be a minority partner. I'm in for $37 too. We'll only need... /crunches numbers ... about 162,000 other people or so. That multiplies out to about $6 million. I would assume that the Wilpons are looking for a lot more than that. What are the Mets worth these days? Anyone have an idea? Approaching a billion I would think.

TransMonk Jan 28 2011 10:34 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I think the idea is that the Wilpons are going to be financially down for several years and need some new money infused to keep the Mets competitive. They have been denying (lying about) this for some time, but IMO, this confirms that the Madoff thingy was bad news for Fred and Sterling...more than they were letting on about. In the long run, this will be good for the Mets.

metirish Jan 28 2011 10:35 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

$858 million from Forbes in 2010 http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/06/most-v ... alues.html

Edgy MD Jan 28 2011 10:37 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I don't think this proves lying at all. Being under a multi-million-dollar lawsuit freezes up assets.

Ceetar Jan 28 2011 10:39 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

TransMonk wrote: I think the idea is that the Wilpons are going to be financially down for several years and need some new money infused to keep the Mets competitive. They have been denying (lying about) this for some time, but IMO, this confirms that the Madoff thingy was bad news for Fred and Sterling...more than they were letting on about. In the long run, this will be good for the Mets. Well, they weren't lying. the lawsuit is fairly new right? It's not the Madoff thing, its' the lawsuit in reaction to the Madoff thing.

Frayed Knot Jan 28 2011 10:41 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

TransMonk wrote: I think the idea is that the Wilpons are going to be financially down for several years and need some new money infused to keep the Mets competitive. They have been denying (lying about) this for some time, but IMO, this confirms that the Madoff thingy was bad news for Fred and Sterling...more than they were letting on about. In the long run, this will be good for the Mets. I think it's more like a hedge should they get bitch-slapped by the results of the lawsuit and want someone to come aboard who is essentially going to help absorb that hit if it does come but at the same time is betting that it won't happen and gets a share of the team going forward for his risk.

TransMonk Jan 28 2011 10:44 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Either way, I'm finally glad the Wilpons admitted there was a problem.

metirish Jan 28 2011 10:46 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Didn't they make money from Madoff?

Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2011 10:47 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Maybe. I've heard reports that they did. But even if so, they still might lose it (and more) in a lawsuit.

metirish Jan 28 2011 10:49 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

yeah , I think the big news on this release is coming......not buying this carefully worded statement.

Ceetar Jan 28 2011 10:50 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

metirish wrote: Didn't they make money from Madoff? I think that's actually the problem. That money is basically illegal and may have to be given back.

Edgy MD Jan 28 2011 10:50 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

The problem is that they made money. The nature of Ponzi schemes is that money from the later investors is used to pay off the earlier and larger investors wanting a piece of those big dividends the schemers have been reporting. Naturally, those later investors are saying, "Wait a minute... Let's share the pain here."

Frayed Knot Jan 28 2011 11:08 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

NEW YORK (WFAN/AP) — The New York Mets are exploring a partial sale of the team as they face a lawsuit from a trustee trying to reclaim money for victims of the Bernard Madoff swindle. Court-appointed trustee Irving Picard said the Mets made nearly $48 million in Madoff’s scheme. According to Picard, the Mets originally invested about $523 million, but eventually withdrew about $571 million from the accounts. The Mets’ owners, Fred Wilpon and son Jeff, say they are looking into the sale to “address the air of uncertainty created by this lawsuit.” They also want to provide assurance that the team will continue to have the “necessary resources to fully compete and win.” The Wilpons have retained former deputy baseball commissioner Steve Greenberg to assist them.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 28 2011 11:16 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale) Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 28 2011 11:38 AM

The aim, then, is-- at least in part-- to diffuse the liability retroactively to Unnamed Suckers A, B and C, should the lawsuit move forward? Wow, what a steal! That's better than a stadium chair!

Gwreck Jan 28 2011 11:23 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Didn't Dave Howard angrily deny the Mets would sell back in August 2009? Yes. Yes he did. I believe he called claims that the Wilpons would sell was "flat-out wrong," "false," "irresponsible," "very disturbing," "outrageous" and "unfounded" noting that the team was "not for sale, in whole or in part."

smg58 Jan 28 2011 11:26 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

seawolf17 wrote: The CPF needs to be a minority partner. I'm in for $37 too. We'll only need... /crunches numbers ... about 162,000 other people or so. We need a more symbolic number. 41? 69? (for the World Series year, so whatever else you may be thinking, stop now.) 86?

G-Fafif Jan 28 2011 11:33 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

$37 is plenty symbolic -- we each kick it for a new beginning, just as was the case when No. 37 came in 50 years ago. That worked out well.

Edgy MD Jan 28 2011 11:37 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Well, it's nice to see some degree of vindication for Erin Arvedlund, becaue, well, she's cuter than David Howard.

metsmarathon Jan 28 2011 12:01 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

smg58 wrote: seawolf17 wrote: The CPF needs to be a minority partner. I'm in for $37 too. We'll only need... /crunches numbers ... about 162,000 other people or so. We need a more symbolic number. 41? 69? (for the World Series year, so whatever else you may be thinking, stop now.) 86? 62.

Ceetar Jan 28 2011 12:03 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Didn't Dave Howard angrily deny the Mets would sell back in August 2009? Yes. Yes he did. I believe he called claims that the Wilpons would sell was "flat-out wrong," "false," "irresponsible," "very disturbing," "outrageous" and "unfounded" noting that the team was "not for sale, in whole or in part." Does this really count as selling? Not to mention, all this is a result of the lawsuit which was very recent right? This offseason? So statements made way back when aren't exactly false. What's your guys opinion of Klapisch. He one of the Chass type? BobKlap Bob Klapisch : Was told Mets' revenues are down 30-35 percent since move to Citi Field. Bud Selig was concerned enough to send Alderson to Flushing that tweet annoys me, thel ast part makes me question the accuracy of the first part.

metsguyinmichigan Jan 28 2011 12:05 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale) Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 28 2011 12:13 PM

Klapisch is having a field day: He tweets: "Only question is, did Wilpons lie to Sandy Alderson, too, about the finances?" "Was told Mets' revenues are down 30-35 percent since move to Citi Field. Bud Selig was concerned enough to send Alderson to Flushing" "Remember, Mets are already gettting $20 million a year from Citibank. To now be asking for more suggests a real crisis." "Yankees aren't looking for a bailout RT @arrabin56: @BobKlap Does the Steinbrenners only owning 70% of the Yankees show a crisis too?" "Although that should've been obvious by how tightly the spigot was shut this winter (total of $7 million spent on free agents).' "Now we see Wilpons have been less than truthful about their financial distress post-Madoff" Klapisch isn't just your basic Yankee Hack, like Verducci. He's an open Mets hater, who has made a career writing bad things about the team. I make a lot of jokes about Jeter-loving Yankee hacks, but in all seriousness, Klaspisch has a bias problem. If there's something bad to be said about the Mets, he's the one saying it. I'm surprised the Record keeps him on the beat. In fact, a lot of papers would have removed him after the Bonilla incident.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 28 2011 12:09 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Edgy DC wrote: Well, it's nice to see some degree of vindication for Erin Arvedlund, becaue, well, she's cuter than David Howard. I think we've already seen more speculation on this than we oughta, but wasn't Arvelund arguing there that the 'Pons issue was having lost money on the Madoff collapse? The facts at this point suggest the financial issue re Madoff is that they made $$ and are now being sued for it. Anyway. Lots of stuff can happen when you take on partners, you see it in biz allatime. Usually also when a company hires an investment banker to "explore alternatives" it finds one, cuz that's an expensive decision right there.

Edgy MD Jan 28 2011 12:10 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

It's like Guy Fawkes Day for Klapisch.

metirish Jan 28 2011 12:18 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Edgy DC wrote: It's like Guy Fawkes Day for Klapisch. I was going to mention how full of the Klap twitter is today ....got to agree with MGIM on the bias.

metirish Jan 28 2011 12:19 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Mets conference call at 2:15

Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2011 12:25 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I bet Ed Kranepool is looking in his sofa cushions for as much loose change as he can find.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 28 2011 12:28 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Times says one guy may be suing the Mets for up to $1 billion! Fred says they are looking to sell 20% or 25% of team

Ceetar Jan 28 2011 12:28 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I always try to stop before accusingthe writers/reporters of bias because I think I suspect most of them of that. Or at least of capitializing on the Mets downfall to twist a good story. But good to know Klap is full of..Krap.. Sounds like they're talking 20-25% stake. Someone tweeted that they're being sued for a billion (which is obviously the way laywers work. ask for the moon in hopes you can settle on a star) 20% would probably be what, 200million? but they also said there is no guarentee they do anything.

Edgy MD Jan 28 2011 12:30 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Times says one guy may be suing the Mets for up to $1 billion! Fred says they are looking to sell 20% or 25% of team I would have guessed 5-10%. That is news. I propose a partnership of MLBS's.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2011 12:32 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I predict that this is going to cause a cry to go out, both far and near, for Mark Cuban.

metirish Jan 28 2011 12:33 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Can you sell a stake in the Mets but not in SNY?....how does all this work within the Sterling umbrella?

Ashie62 Jan 28 2011 12:37 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Partial sale of team to cover Madoff Lawsuits [url]http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/14613865/mets-consider-partial-sale-as-they-face-madoff-lawsuit

Ceetar Jan 28 2011 12:37 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

metirish wrote: Can you sell a stake in the Mets but not in SNY?....how does all this work within the Sterling umbrella? sure, they're different entities. They're merely selling part of the Mets part of it. This is probably also why it's different than taking on a new 'partner' with any controlling interest. Seems like the new guy would be buying into the Mets, not into Sterling? The cry for Cuban has been all over the place already. It's silly, as silent minority owner probably isn't what he's going for, and I imagine owning part of the Mets would be seen as a conflict of interest if he then went to try to buy the T. Rangers or something.

Gwreck Jan 28 2011 12:38 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Ceetar wrote: [Does this really count as selling? Yes. Had Dave Howard made those same statements under oath, you wouldn't be now able to convict him of perjury -- but it's clearly a big shift from what their position was 16 months ago.

Ashie62 Jan 28 2011 12:38 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Edgy DC wrote: The problem is that they made money. The nature of Ponzi schemes is that money from the later investors is used to pay off the earlier and larger investors wanting a piece of those big dividends the schemers have been reporting. Naturally, those later investors are saying, "Wait a minute... Let's share the pain here." 100 percent correct.

metsmarathon Jan 28 2011 12:39 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Times says one guy may be suing the Mets for up to $1 billion! how exactly would that make a lick of sense?

Ashie62 Jan 28 2011 12:40 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

You'd have to have to be a bit odd to buy into a situation with litigation and so much uncertainty. The buyer could assume unlimited financial risk.

Ashie62 Jan 28 2011 12:41 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

metsmarathon wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Times says one guy may be suing the Mets for up to $1 billion! how exactly would that make a lick of sense? Damages for money that could have been earned during said time period.

Frayed Knot Jan 28 2011 12:43 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Gwreck wrote: Didn't Dave Howard angrily deny the Mets would sell back in August 2009? Yes. Yes he did. I believe he called claims that the Wilpons would sell was "flat-out wrong," "false," "irresponsible," "very disturbing," "outrageous" and "unfounded" noting that the team was "not for sale, in whole or in part." So a statement in mid-2009 has to also hold true in early 2011 (and presumably for all time and ever and ever) in order to not be cast as a lie?

attgig Jan 28 2011 12:44 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

metirish wrote: Can you sell a stake in the Mets but not in SNY?....how does all this work within the Sterling umbrella? I think the sterling umbrella is simply the holding company. underneath the sterling umbrella, you have completely independently run subsidiaries such as their real estate group, property management group, venture capital group, and two others just happened to be sny and the ny mets. because they're completely independent subsidiaries, they are independently operated underneath the umbrella and each can have only a certain percentage being owned by sterling, with in this case, 75-80% of profits or losses being rolled up/reported up.

Ceetar Jan 28 2011 12:44 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Ashie62 wrote: You'd have to have to be a bit odd to buy into a situation with litigation and so much uncertainty. The buyer could assume unlimited financial risk. Is the buyer assuming _any_ risk? Isn't he buying into the Mets, and not Sterling, the entity being sued? Most of this is above my head, so who knows really, but I think the idea is that the buyer would basically be paying off the suit to get a share of the team. I don't think the Wilpons are going to get sued for 100 million and then turn to the new guy and be like "you owe 20million of this."

metirish Jan 28 2011 12:45 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Jeff says minority partner would be with team and not SNY/Citi Field..... Greenberg says as of today 20-25% is up for sale....."interest should be robust".... That hair!

Ashie62 Jan 28 2011 12:49 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Douchebags with hair.

Edgy MD Jan 28 2011 12:50 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Joel Sherman needs to inhale. http://twitter.com/Joelsherman1

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 28 2011 12:51 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

For real. In terms of what it means, club-control-wise... not a whit, right? After all, the Steinbrenners' ownership proportion of the Yankees is a fraction of what the Wilpons own, Met-wise, no?

Edgy MD Jan 28 2011 12:57 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

It's hard to say, but the breathless speculation is impressive.

Ceetar Jan 28 2011 12:59 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: For real. In terms of what it means, club-control-wise... not a whit, right? After all, the Steinbrenners' ownership proportion of the Yankees is a fraction of what the Wilpons own, Met-wise, no? yeah, the initial bit is 'not a whit' but the idea is that anything can happen once you open the door. But yeah, the plan is for it not to affect the Mets, whould supposedly is the impidus (sp?) for the decision.

MFS62 Jan 28 2011 01:16 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Ashie62 wrote: Douchebags with hair. Which reminds me. Why would anybody want to invest in the Mets (as a financial investor, not a fan) as long as the two douchebags with hair would still have controlling interests, and be making the decisions? Later

seawolf17 Jan 28 2011 01:19 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Because you can get sweet tickets AND first dibs on Julia Stiles. (Well, third dibs behind Fred and Jeff. But whatever.)

Edgy MD Jan 28 2011 01:22 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Because the team is a tremendous asset whose value has increased multple times over in the thirty years since the Doubleday Group purchased it. With the antitrust exemption they have, baseball teams are elusive things to get a hold of. Steinberenner went for the Yankees only after failing to buy the Indians. The lawsuit may dissaude somebody, but Jeff Wilpon and his hair less so.

metirish Jan 28 2011 01:29 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Forbes, some interesting stuff in here.....bold area are mine Pressed By Madoff Suit, Mets Owners Seek a Lifeline Is the well running dry for the owners of the New York Mets? Fred Wilpon, the man who bought his first stake in the Mets in 1980 and bought out partner Nelson Doubleday in 2002, said today that he’s retained Steve Greenberg of Allen & Company, a boutique investment bank in New York, to help him search for one or more minority investors in the team. Wilpon insists that he will retain majority ownership of the Mets, which he owns through his company, Sterling Equities. Wilpon told reporters he was looking to explore selling a 20% to 25% stake in the team. Despite the uncertain economy, Greenberg describes the marketplace for potential minority owners as “never stronger.” (Press release, below) That’s probably an exaggeration, given that other baseball properties on the block for awhile have yet to move – witness the Red Sox inability to move the 17% stake that the New York Times Company decided to shed. But most agree the market has generally strengthened since 2009. Any deal to sell off part of the Mets will c0me down to the details – what exactly is being sold. “If it’s a just a suite and capital calls, there won’t be much interest,” says industry consultant Marc Ganis of Sports Corp. Limited, who thinks any serious offer would likely have to include capital call protections and an interest in the Mets’ SNY cable network. “The market is good, but the investors are very picky,” he says. It’s been a tough couple of years for Fred Wilpon and his son Jeff , the Mets’ Chief Operating Officer. A client of scamster Bernie Madoff, Sterling Equities is being sued by the Trustee of the Madoff bankruptcy. The claim is that the Wilpons took more money out of Madoff account than they put in over the years, and as net winners they owe some of that money to other victims. Wilpon has been trying to quietly settle the suit. In his initial public statement, Fred Wilpon said that his desire to reassure fans during a period that’s brought an “air of uncertainty” created by the lawsuit is driving his quest to look for new investors. That strikes some observers as a bit odd. “On the one hand, they mention an air of uncertainty, but they’re also acknowledging that they need money” says Rob Tillis of Inner Circle Sports, a New York-based sports M&A firm. The Mets have also suffered through disappointing performances on the field and at the gate during the first two seasons of their $800 million ballpark, Citi Field. As Tillis points out, the Mets missed out on the attendance spike that usually accompanies the opening of a new park, thanks to the crummy economy and mediocrity on the field. Many believe the Wilpons have been offering up a minority share in the Mets for awhile now, quietly canvassing friends and high net worth individuals to gauge interest. By now going public with the plan “you’re making sure that investors will approach you,” says Ganis. A recent front office shakeup has the Wilpons pinning their hopes on new GM Sandy Alderson and new manager Terry Collins to turn things around. That could certainly happen, but not until the club is able to unload the burdensome contracts left over from the last regime and start fresh. It looks like a cash infusion may be needed too. Not that any of this makes the Mets situation all that unique. Teams look for minority partners all the time, notes Tillis, so there’s no reason to assume that the Wilpons are taking a first step toward getting out. “The real question is whether they will be able to find limited partner capital,” he says. “It will depend on the size of the checks and the valuation.” Forbes most recently valued the Mets at $858 million, third-highest in MLB behind the Yankees and Red Sox.

MFS62 Jan 28 2011 01:30 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Well then, let's go for it. Reminds me of those movies in the 40s* where the teenagers had to raise money to "help our GIs'". Go get Mickey, Judy, Jane and that O'Connor kid. Let's put on a show!. Later *= no, I didn't see them until they came on tv many years later.

Frayed Knot Jan 28 2011 01:32 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

MFS62 wrote: Ashie62 wrote: Douchebags with hair. Which reminds me. Why would anybody want to invest in the Mets (as a financial investor, not a fan) as long as the two douchebags with hair would still have controlling interests, and be making the decisions? Later There are already minority owners in the team as there are in most teams and in many non-sports businesses as well - and I bet few if any of them are the decision makers.

Valadius Jan 28 2011 01:38 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

The first thing to do here is ensure that James Dolan does not try to add the Mets to his greasy clutches.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2011 01:41 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Nelson Doubleday must be enjoying this.

Edgy MD Jan 28 2011 01:46 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Mebbe. I tend to think that Nelson isn't in good mental health these days.

Edgy MD Jan 28 2011 01:48 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Oddly enough, Nelson's selling assets also.

Gwreck Jan 28 2011 02:21 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Frayed Knot wrote: So a statement in mid-2009 has to also hold true in early 2011 (and presumably for all time and ever and ever) in order to not be cast as a lie? No, of course not, as I clarified in a follow-up post. But it certainly is significant that their denial of the need to sell was so vehement just a short while ago.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2011 02:50 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: For real. In terms of what it means, club-control-wise... not a whit, right? After all, the Steinbrenners' ownership proportion of the Yankees is a fraction of what the Wilpons own, Met-wise, no? That's probably how the Wilpons would want it. Assuming that no more than 25% of the voting rights are attached to the the 25% ownership stake for sale, then the new investors will, presumably, not have a say-so in any matter that can be resolved by vote. I'd expect the new investors to negotiate for more voting power, given the risk that they would be assuming. This is business as usual, but played out at the top of the pyramid, in Masters of the Universe territory. The Wilpons (and Katz) will try to get as much money as possible from the new investors, while relinquishing as little as they can in exchange. The potential buyers will want as much as they can get while paying as little as possible.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2011 03:04 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale) Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 28 2011 03:10 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: TransMonk wrote: I think the idea is that the Wilpons are going to be financially down for several years and need some new money infused to keep the Mets competitive. They have been denying (lying about) this for some time, but IMO, this confirms that the Madoff thingy was bad news for Fred and Sterling...more than they were letting on about. In the long run, this will be good for the Mets. I think it's more like a hedge should they get bitch-slapped by the results of the lawsuit and want someone to come aboard who is essentially going to help absorb that hit if it does come but at the same time is betting that it won't happen and gets a share of the team going forward for his risk. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on the Mets absorbing a sizable hit from the Madoff scandal. The Mets didn't profit in the real sense from their Madoff investments because Madoff's fund wasn't profitable. There were no real profits. Any monies distributed by Madoff were arbitrary. That the Mets finally bit the bullet and went public with their need for more capital probably reflects their understanding that the team won't be able to settle the Madoff trustee's lawsuit on favorable terms. The Mets aren't judgment proof either. They have fixed assets worth multi-millions of dollars that can't be moved or hidden. The Mets are like an anesthetized deer caught in the Trustee's crosshairs. The trustee will get paid.

Edgy MD Jan 28 2011 03:09 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

The question (in my mind) is whether they have to pay the other investors back the profits (which I'm certain will happen at the end of the day), or they have to additionally give a chunk of their principal to the fund, so each swindled party shoulders the hit evenly. If I'm representing those investors, I go for that money also, which would really sting Sterling.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2011 03:14 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Edgy DC wrote: The question (in my mind) is whether they have to pay the other investors back the profits (which I'm certain will happen at the end of the day), or they have to additionally give a chunk of their principle to the fund, so each swindled party shoulders the hit evenly. If I'm representing those investors, I go for that money also, which would really sting Sterling. I think that, fairly and rightfully so, it's the latter.

Edgy MD Jan 28 2011 03:18 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I agree, but if I'm named Wilpon, I expect you'd have to pull some of my teeth before I'd acknowledge that. And I expect them to fight bloody hard and bloody long, and that principal to be untouchable in the meantime. If so, that's likely left them hamstrung.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2011 03:29 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Edgy DC wrote: I agree, but if I'm named Wilpon, I expect you'd have to pull some of my teeth before I'd acknowledge that. Well .... yeah. As it is, Wilpon's not acknowledging anything unless he absolutely has to. The Mets are fine. The Mets have no financial problems. There's no need to sell the team or a portion of the team. The market's great. Jeff Wilpon's a better baseball man than Branch Rickey ever was. The first statue erected in front of Citi Field will honor Branch Rickey. That's what the fans wanted. We took a poll.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2011 03:48 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy DC wrote: The question (in my mind) is whether they have to pay the other investors back the profits (which I'm certain will happen at the end of the day), or they have to additionally give a chunk of their principle to the fund, so each swindled party shoulders the hit evenly. If I'm representing those investors, I go for that money also, which would really sting Sterling. I think that, fairly and rightfully so, it's the latter. According to this report, the Madoff trustee is going after the $48M Mets "profit" . But I know of clawback cases where the trustee goes after both principal and interest. So who knows? It doesn't make sense that the Mets would've made today's announcement if their maximum exposure was $48M.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2011 03:52 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2011 03:56 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

This New York Times article makes more sense to me. Excerpt: The Wilpon accounts were targeted, at least in part, because, according to Picard, they were “net winners” in Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, withdrawing more money from the accounts than they put in. But Picard also has the leeway to seek additional sums from Madoff clients, depending on what his investigations reveal about their conduct. One person involved in the Madoff cases said it was possible that Picard was seeking as much as $1 billion from Wilpon and Katz. “I think he has a very serious problem,” the person said of Wilpon. “If that’s true, he might have to sell the Mets.” The person asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the Mets’ situation.

metsguyinmichigan Jan 28 2011 04:12 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

batmagadanleadoff wrote: So opening a new stadium made them worth LESS???

Ashie62 Jan 28 2011 04:22 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Because of the cash spent on it?

Frayed Knot Jan 28 2011 04:36 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

This New York Times article makes more sense to me. Excerpt: The Wilpon accounts were targeted, at least in part, because, according to Picard, they were “net winners” in Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, withdrawing more money from the accounts than they put in. But Picard also has the leeway to seek additional sums from Madoff clients, depending on what his investigations reveal about their conduct. One person involved in the Madoff cases said it was possible that Picard was seeking as much as $1 billion from Wilpon and Katz. “I think he has a very serious problem,” the person said of Wilpon. “If that’s true, he might have to sell the Mets.” The person asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the Mets’ situation. I don't see how the penalty on the Wilpons could wind up higher than even their total investment ($1billion vs $500-some million) but I suspect that 1B number is just a shoot for the moon that doesn't really mean much in the end.

Ceetar Jan 28 2011 06:00 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

This New York Times article makes more sense to me. Excerpt: The Wilpon accounts were targeted, at least in part, because, according to Picard, they were “net winners” in Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, withdrawing more money from the accounts than they put in. But Picard also has the leeway to seek additional sums from Madoff clients, depending on what his investigations reveal about their conduct. One person involved in the Madoff cases said it was possible that Picard was seeking as much as $1 billion from Wilpon and Katz. “I think he has a very serious problem,” the person said of Wilpon. “If that’s true, he might have to sell the Mets.” The person asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the Mets’ situation. I don't see how the penalty on the Wilpons could wind up higher than even their total investment ($1billion vs $500-some million) but I suspect that 1B number is just a shoot for the moon that doesn't really mean much in the end. Agreed. lawyers always ask for the most absurd things. REmember Jeter asked for like 150million and settled for like 48. supposedly the wilpons are working on a settlement, which is probably the best outcome but probably still represents XXX millions. Probably significantly less than the 500 they put in, and nowhere near the stupid number of a billion. Actually, Them mentioning 20-25% probably means that that's the number they're expecting to be out. 200million or so.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2011 06:03 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Here's the transcript of today's press conference and ensuing Q&A. The thing is useless. It's the biggest pile of endarounding double-talk and slippery vagueness imaginable. Fred Wilpon: At the outset, I want to emphasize that what we are discussing today has not and will not affect or change the Mets day-to-day operations and control. We will continue to operate the franchise in a first-class manner. [I woulda raised one eyebrow right here, hopefully high enough to get Fred's attention.] This season, we have one of the highest payrolls in baseball, as we have for the past several years. Our general manager, Sandy Alderson, has articulated his plan, and his plan is being implemented. The reason for the statement we issued today is the lawsuit that was filed in December by the trustee in the Madoff lawsuit matter, and the uncertainty that it has created. Because of that uncertainty, it is prudent, in my view, and reasonable and appropriate, for us to explore our options at this time. It is the right thing to do from a business perspective. Among the options we are exploring is the possibility of bringing in a strategic partner or partners. However, I’d like to stress, at the end of the day, we may or may not do anything. But we are exploring options, and we wanted to be candid and upfront with you. In any event, we will remain the principal owners of the Mets. We will continue to control the franchise, and govern its operations. I guess we’re now able to answer any of the questions. Q: In October, when Omar Minaya was fired, and November, when Alderson was hired, you indicated that all was well financially. Besides the new lawsuit, has anything else changed? Fred: That call, [when] Jeff and I had that press briefing or press conference, was on Oct. 4. The lawsuit was filed on Dec. 7. And the lawsuit, as I said, is some uncertainties here [sic]. The lawsuit is under seal. And so I can’t talk about the lawsuit. But all the other issues that I talked about at that particular time, as to our other businesses and so forth, they are in the same position. Or better. Q: When you say uncertainties, are those the uncertainties in the public’s mind? Or uncertainties within the Mets? Fred: This is not the Mets issue, primarily. It’s the whole Sterling Equities issue. Q: But of the uncertainty you mentioned, is that the public’s perception of Sterling or is it Sterling’s problem? When you say uncertainty, what are you referring to? Fred: I’m referring to uncertainty. A lawsuit brings uncertainty. We don’t know what’s going to ... we’re in confidential settlement talks with the trustee. And we hope those talks come to fruition. But that’s uncertainty. Q: In regards to the search for additional partners, are we talking specifically the team, or also SNY and Citi Field? What assets are we talking about? Jeff Wilpon: It’s the team. And it’s a potential for a strategic partner that Steve Greenberg’s going to undertake for us. Q: But the television network and the facility – Jeff: Totally separate. Totally separate. The TV network, SNY, is owned totally separate [sic]. Q: And that’s not part of this consideration? Jeff: It is not part of the consideration. Q: With regard to the lawsuit, it’s under seal, but it sounds like this could be some kind of significant event in regard to the final value of the club. Is that sort of the nexus here? Fred: No. It’s under seal. We can’t talk about anything about the lawsuit. Q: Two questions. The first: What percentage of the team would you be looking to sell? And how much money are you trying to raise? Fred: We have talked about a minority interest in the 20-to-25 percent range. And I can’t really discuss how much money that would bring in. But the fact is, that’s up to Steve Greenberg. Q: For Mr. Greenberg, what would be the challenges of selling a minority interest in the team as opposed to a majority interest? And when you say “exploring options,” you made it sound like a sale of the minority percent of the team. Are there things you could do to raise money besides selling a minority interest? Greenberg: Well, let me address your first question. I think it is generally held that there’s a premium attached to selling control of an asset, depending on what the asset is. That premium can vary. So I wouldn’t expect, in this case, given my knowledge of this asset – and we’ve been involved with the Mets for the better part of a decade, we know the asset intimately ... I’m very confident that when qualified buyers explore and get access to the information that they’re going to get, that we’ll have a robust level of interest in even a minority stake in the club, given it’s prospects. What was the last part of your question? Q: Multiple options besides exploring selling a minority interest? Greenberg: I think that’s public relations speak. I’m too simple-minded to parse through that. I know what we’re going to do. We’re going accept incoming calls, and they’ll be a lot of them, and maybe explore a couple of outgoing, to see who might be interested in acquiring a minority stake that Fred described in the club. Q: What guarantee would a potential buyer have that he, she, the company would not be involved in any ongoing suits, settlements involving Madoff? Is there a piece of paper on that already that a potential buyer would be able to see? Fred: No. We can’t talk about that kind of confidential information, in any event. Q: But if somebody was going to be buying a percent of a club, who guarantee would they have that they are not a party to something legal down the line? Fred: I’m not a lawyer. I can’t answer that. Q: You've got lawyers. Fred: There’s no lawyers on this call. Well, Steve is. Greenberg: I’m defrocked. Or no longer practicing, whatever the word is. Every transaction has the issue of what you’re talking about, which is “contigent liability,” potential lawsuits that are lurking out there. And the buyer does due diligence, and his lawyers really determine whether they’re issues. I’m not anticipating that to be a significant factor in this process. Q: Is there a timetable to sell? Greenberg: It’s starting today, and we’ll see how it plays out. I have no timetable. We haven’t discussed a timetable with Fred. As I said, I expect there to be a significant amount of interest in this opportunity. And we’ll pursue it and make those judgment as we go. Q: Would any minority stakeholders be open to capital calls, if the club needed more money? Greenberg: Gee, you’re asking us to lay out the whole deal now. It’s a little premature to get into that. I’m sure, at the end of the day, that and many other issues will be discussed and determined. But I think it’s a little early. Q: Was there any pressure from MLB to seek a potential partner? And also, could you update us on where the settlement talks are right now? Fred: There’s been no pressure whatsoever from Major League Baseball. The second part was update you on the settlement. I can’t really do that. It’s under seal at this time. Q: Lawsuits have been filed basically since the Madoff story broke in 2008. Are you saying this caught you by surprise in December? Jeff: I don’t think that’s the case at all. But we didn’t know exactly what was going to be filed, and to what extent it might be or wasn’t. That’s just what ended up happening. Q: So shouldn’t you have been preparing for this since 2008 and were you preparing for this since things happened back in December 2008? Jeff: Fred, [team president] Saul [Katz] and myself talk all the time about preparing for anything and everything that’s out there. So we’ve had discussions. Nothing came to fruition until the last day or so, really this morning, to decide to announce this, that we’re going in this direction. Q: Fred, depending on the result of this search and the outcome of the lawsuit, is there any circumstance under which you would consider or be forced to consider selling a controlling interest of the team? Fred: No. I don’t see that at all. Q: Why are you not pursuing the other options? Can you give any clarification on how much money you’re looking to raise? And then the follow-up question, why didn’t you go to J.P. Morgan to borrow more money against the team or to borrow more money against SNY? Jeff: I think you sort of answered your own question at the end there, of what the other options could be. Our banks are some of the options, and there’s other institutions and insurance companies, et cetera, to do some financing. And Steve’s way of doing it, in terms of selling a minority piece, is only one of the ways that we’re looking at. We’re going to keep everything open and see what makes the most sense for the franchise. But I think you can do the math on what Fred already talked about, a minority stake of 20 or 25 percent. You figure out the valuation, so you have some idea of what we’re talking about. Q: The team owes roughly $750 million dollars. Or, you tell me. I guess I’m asking the question. Jeff: You’re wrong on your numbers, first of all. And second of all, I’m not going to get into our private finances. Q: Let’s say I’m an investor, I’ve got $150 million or so and I want to invest in the Mets. If I’m not going to be a controlling owner and I get to vote and I have a say and I’m really going to be “the guy,” what am I going to get from my minority interest, other than to say I’m a part owner? What am I going to get for the money? Fred: I’ll give it over to Steve, because he has a lot of experience in that. But there are a lot of minority owners in baseball that get an awful lot. Greenberg: And first of all, I heard you say you have $150 million dollars. Can you send me your phone number? I’ve got to talk to you afterwards. But seriously, I think how we got to this point, focusing just on the New York Mets, is that ... my thinking was this: If Fred and Saul and Jeff were buying the Mets today, typically what would happen is they would become the lead owner, the controlling owner, the majority owner, whatever you want to call it. And they would bring in partners to acquire the New York Mets today. The fact is, that’s how most of the clubs are being acquired in all sports today. Certainly the major-market clubs. If you look around the landscape of New York, the New York Giants have 50-50 partners. The Yankees, from the beginning of time, have had minority partners. That’s the way most clubs are acquired. What I concluded was the fact that Sterling has owned this club essentially for 20-odd years, initially with Nelson Doubleday but for the last eight or nine years 100-percent, that if we’re looking at the asset, that’s not the normal way to own an asset of this nature. You have debt. And you typically have minority partners. So the proposition we’re putting forward today is exactly the proposition that one might put forward if one were actually acquiring the team today. And you go to those minority investors, whether they have $25 million or $50 million or $100 million that they’re going to put in. And you offer them the same kind of limited-partnership interest that every other club owner is offering their limited partners when they make acquisitions today. There’s a wide range of precedents for this across sports. So it’s not really that unusual. What’s a little unusual is that we’re doing it after we’ve already owned the team. But even that isn’t so unusual, because as you know, the Maras brought in the Tisches after they had owned the team for many, many years. So you work out what those privileges, rights and benefits are for minority ownership. But, again, there’s a pretty good template out there across all sports for doing that. So I’m not really concerned about it. Q: Could you give a few examples of things included in a typical deal? Greenberg: First and foremost, it’s in the economic interest in what we believe is a fantastic Major League Baseball franchise in the largest city in the United States. So let’s not lose sight of that. It’s the economic interest alongside Fred and Saul and Jeff and Sterling in the New York Mets going forward into the future. We believe that future is bright. So I think that’s what’s going to catch people’s attention first and foremost. It’s not whether you get to go to spring training and shake hands with the manager, as much fun as that may be. It’s really about the economic ownership of the team. Q: Could you describe the marketplace for potential owners? Given the economy, how much difficult is it? Is it possible that finding a 20-25 percent owner might not be that easy? Greenberg: The short answer to your question is: Never stronger. There was certainly a dip immediately after the crash in 08. All assets, I think, suffered, although, interestingly, the franchise values of major-league teams really suffered far less than any other asset out there. But in terms of qualified buyers and interest in them owning major-league teams across all sports today, I would say “never strong,” frankly. The question of minority stake: The market will tell us what it is. I wouldn’t take the assignment on if I didn’t think it was very, very doable. But I think the overall market is strong. Q: For Jeff, there had been a pretty vehement denial that this would happen in the past couple years. What are your feelings now that it is happening? Does it trouble you to bring someone on? Jeff: First of all, things have changed, like Fred said before, from October to now and in the last few years, with the lawsuit, number one. And number two, I don’t say that we’re not going to take on a partner. But there are other options for us out there that we’re going to explore. So we’ll take on whatever we think we should do in the best economic interest of the ballclub. So it could be a partner. It could be some other kind of mechanism to recapitalize a little bit. Q: Are you familiar with the pending motion that WNBC and The New York Times has requesting that all documents and materials in the bankruptcy court be unsealed? What is your position on unsealing requests? Are you aware the judge has scheduled a hearing for Feb. 9 and whether that had an effect on this announcement? Jeff: We can’t comment on anything with the sealed documents or any pending legal matters. Q: Is the Mets position that those documents remain secret? Or do you support the unsealing and public release of those documents? Again, is the timing of the announcement linked to the motion that was filed? Jeff: It’s not for me to comment. And my lawyers and our lawyers have told us that we cannot comment. Q: For Fred and Jeff, what effect has the suit and Madoff situation had both the cash flow and the liquidity of the Mets and of Sterling Equities? Fred: I don’t think the suit has had any effect on the cash flow or the liquidity of the Mets in any major way at all. So that would be my answer to that. Q: So what exactly is the uncertainty the suit creates, then? Fred: We’re talking about an uncertainty about overall Sterling Equities. Because that’s what the lawsuit is talking about. So that’s what the uncertainty is. And that’s why we’re taking what we think are very prudent and reasonable steps to look at different things that might be out there. As Jeff said, we don’t know which one is going to come in. Jeff: The other thing is this is a great asset. And this is a place that we look like we can leverage that a little bit. And that’s what Steve has told us he’ll be able to do, and we’ll evaluate it as things come in. Q: So is it possible that any cash you raise here with the Mets could be used to help inject things which are frozen in Sterling? Jeff: I think, because we’re private, we’re not going to go into that. But we’re looking to do something with the team, and make sure the team is healthy so that we can put the proper ballplayers on the field and give Sandy what he needs in terms of flexibility to have a winning ball club. Q: Can you explained how with Madoff, you’re viewed as a net gainer yet also considered a victim? Jeff: Again, I think that unfortunately goes into the legal realm. We can’t comment on it. Q: Is a fair summary that even if one fund had more withdrawn from it than others, you certainly thought you had more than you actually had overall? Could you elaborate at all? Jeff: We’re not allowed to elaborate. I apologize. Q: Is it fair to say you would not be doing this as an organization if you didn’t feel you had to do this? Greenberg: I think from my perspective, and I’m just dealing with the New York Mets, not the overall Sterling-Madoff situation, we talk all the time about how we strengthen the capital structure of the Mets. So that’s a hypothetical. If the Madoff thing weren’t swirling around and that uncertainty that Fred alluded to wasn’t there, whether we would be having these conversations. We might very well be. But it’s kind of a hypothetical. So it’s hard for me to be more specific than that. I think this is a prudent approach to team ownership and the financial structure of team ownership, irrespective of what else is happening in the world. Q: Did something happen in the last week to 10 days to prompt this announcement? Fred: No. Nothing has happened in the last 10 days. Q: Or two weeks. Whatever. Something recent, since the beginning of the New Year. Jeff: I think what happened is we came to the conclusion — Fred, Saul and myself, with Steve’s help — that this was a good thing to go out and do now. http://www.nj.com/mets/index.ssf/2011/0 ... _will.html

batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2011 07:27 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

More commentary on today's big Mets news: Excerpt: It is important to realize that the Mets are simply one part of Sterling Equities, a real-estate and private-equity group owned and operated by the Wilpons. For instance, Sterling also owns SNY, the sports network. Though Jeff Wilpon stressed in the conference call with reporters that SNY is “totally separate” and not for sale, it is unlikely that the Mets didn't explore borrowing against SNY before offering to sell a part of the team. It is Sterling Equities that has been named by the Picard lawsuit, with the New York Times reporting that Picard is seeking as much as $1 billion from the Wilpons and Saul Katz, a co-owner of Sterling Equities and Fred Wilpon's brother-in-law. When asked if the Mets would take a financial infusion from sale of the Mets and use it for other Sterling Equities businesses, Jeff Wilpon responded, “Because we're private, we're not going to go into that.” Based on the limited amount of information provided by the Wilpons and Greenberg—they refused to answer repeated questions about Madoff by noting that the matter is currently under court seal—it is still extraordinarily difficult to see how the numbers can possibly add up in the Wilpons' favor. As Jeff Wilpon said during the conference call, “I think you can do the math on what Fred already talked about. A minority stake of 20 or 25 percent, and you figure out the valuation, so you have some idea of what we're talking about.” With Forbes valuing the Mets at $858 billion [sic] as of April 2010, a 25 percent stake would come to $214.5 million. Naturally, though, such a stake would be worth far less than the whole team, particularly under the terms the Wilpons discussed today—no say in the operation. Moreover, as Erin Arvedlund, author of a book about Bernie Madoff, reported back in August 2009, the Wilpons may have lost up to $700 million in the Madoff scheme, calling into question how much equity is even available in the team itself. Jeff Wilpon, in the course of answering a question that cited the figure, said, “You're wrong in your numbers, first of all, and I'm not going to get into our private finances.” It was an odd stance during a conference call dedicated to explaining precisely what their private finances were. Wilpon also declined to say that the Mets were debt-free, and wouldn’t say what lower (or higher) number would be accurate. And that speaks to the public-relations problem the Wilpons have now—one that may be incurable, even if they should get out of what appears to be a huge financial mess. Since news first broke about the Madoff scandal, the Wilpons have repeatedly said that the scandal would have no effect on their finances or the operations of the New York Mets. Following Arvedlund's comments, Mets Vice President Dave Howard confronted her on Fox Business News, calling her claim that the Wilpons could be forced to sell part of the team “outrageous, unfounded and grossly irresponsible.” Howard added that the team was not for sale “in whole or in part.” As Jeff Wilpon said Friday, “Things have changed, like Fred said before, from October to now, and the last few years, with the lawsuit.” So with those claims now inoperative, it is hard to imagine that the fans will trust anything the Wilpons say about their finances again. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/c ... re-selling

batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2011 07:36 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

According to this Crain's Business article, the Mets exposure is the $48M surplus over and above their principal investment. Trustee Irving Picard, in court papers, said that Mets LP had two accounts with Mr. Madoff, out of which $47.8 million more was taken out than the Wilpons invested. Mr. Picard has followed the line that net winners are subject to lawsuits to claim back any surplus over their original principal. Mr. Picard has sued hundreds of Madoff investors who withdrew more from their accounts than they originally put in. http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20 ... 110129861#

MFS62 Jan 29 2011 06:33 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Check out the last post on page 1 of this thread. Looks like I was the only person to guess the announcement correctly. Nyah Nyah. Later

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 29 2011 07:05 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Jeff Wilpon, in the course of answering a question that cited the figure, said, “You're wrong in your numbers, first of all, and I'm not going to get into our private finances.” It was an odd stance during a conference call dedicated to explaining precisely what their private finances were. Wilpon also declined to say that the Mets were debt-free, and wouldn’t say what lower (or higher) number would be accurate. Good thing Omar's gone, 'cause otherwise, this organization and the people running it would still look delusional and defensive.

Frayed Knot Jan 29 2011 07:06 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

batmagadanleadoff wrote: According to this Crain's Business article, the Mets exposure is the $48M surplus over and above their principal investment. Makes a whole lot more sense than 1 billion

batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2011 07:26 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale) Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 29 2011 07:40 AM

But according to this ESPN article, no one knows what the Mets exposure is: At a time when Fred Wilpon is being targeted by others who lost money in the Bernie Madoff deal, the New York Mets are seeking new investors. Without knowing exactly how much money the Wilpons have, or what they stand to lose, we can't know exactly when or how this will be resolved. But it's safe to say that the Madoff scandal could, in the end, be viewed as a turning point in Mets history -- a domino that could eventually lead to change in the team's ownership http://espn.go.com/mlb/blog/_/name/olne ... ning-point From Bloomberg's: Sterling Equities Inc., the owner of the Mets, Mets LP and Fred and Jeff Wilpon were sued by the trustee liquidating the Madoff business, Irving Picard, on Dec. 7 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan. Picard, in court papers, said that Mets LP had two accounts with Madoff that involved taking out $47.8 million more than the Wilpons invested. Picard has followed the line that net winners are subject to lawsuits to claw back any surplus over their original principal. Picard has sued hundreds of Madoff investors who withdrew more from their accounts than they originally invested. Profit Unknown The suit, which was filed under seal, names dozens of people and entities related to Sterling Equities Inc. and the Wilpon family. It’s unclear how much profit they may have taken from the Madoff fraud or what Picard claims they must pay back. The New York Times, citing two lawyers involved in the case, said Picard is seeking more than $300 million from the owners of the Mets. The lawyers were not identified. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-2 ... adoff.html Mike Lupica: "No one is sure" It was back in December that the trustee for other Madoff victims, Irving Picard, went after the Wilpons and Katz for big money. No one is sure how big. You even hear that Picard wants to get a billion dollars off the Wilpon family because he says they withdrew more money from Madoff accounts than they put in, and even though the real number probably isn't close. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseb ... _mess.html

Frayed Knot Jan 29 2011 07:35 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

But according to this ESPN article, no one knows what the Mets exposure is: At a time when Fred Wilpon is being targeted by others who lost money in the Bernie Madoff deal, the New York Mets are seeking new investors. Without knowing exactly how much money the Wilpons have, or what they stand to lose, we can't know exactly when or how this will be resolved. But it's safe to say that the Madoff scandal could, in the end, be viewed as a turning point in Mets history -- a domino that could eventually lead to change in the team's ownership http://espn.go.com/mlb/blog/_/name/olne ... ning-point All that says it that WE - as in we here at ESPN writing this excuse for an article - have no idea what the level of exposure is therefore we have no problem making the bold prediction that this may, or may not, affect the future of the Wilpon ownership depending on how things turn out. I'm surprised that they didn't also throw in that IF the Steelers win the turnover battle, and IF they stay out of too many 3rd-and-longs, and IF don't commit numerous costly penalties, and IF they control the line of scrimmage then they stand a good chance of winning the big game next Sunday. Obviously whoever gets into this thing as a minority owner is going to have a helluva lot more knowledge of the finances before jumping in.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2011 07:43 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Well, yeah. Obviously the Mets know what their exposure is, their worst case scenario, and probably, the odds of actually sustaining those risks. No one is implying that the Mets don't know. BTW, I edited my last post to add some other articles in addition to ESPN's Insider piece.

Ceetar Jan 29 2011 07:54 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Well, yeah. Obviously the Mets know what their exposure is, their worst case scenario, and probably, the odds of actually sustaining those risks. No one is implying that the Mets don't know. BTW, I edited my last post to add some other articles in addition to ESPN's Insider piece. What seems to be getting glossed over is that A. the Wilpons aren't the only party being sued (So they'd never actually be responsiblefor the full 1billion, even if that ridiculous number was the number awarded) and 2. They're working on settlements to avoid the actual court stuff. They've said they might not even taket on a minority guy. Maybe that depends on the settlement amount. if it's favorable,t hey're okay.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2011 08:12 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I would guess that the sealed complaint is seeking to clawback Sterling's principal investment in the Madoff fund, as well as the surplus (Sterling's so called "profit"). With interest and penalties, that figure would approach $1 billion. Whether or not Sterling would be liable for anything above the surplus will depend on whether or not Sterling was an innocent investor, or whether the trustee can prove otherwise.

Frayed Knot Jan 29 2011 08:48 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Well, yeah. Obviously the Mets know what their exposure is, their worst case scenario, and probably, the odds of actually sustaining those risks. No one is implying that the Mets don't know. BTW, I edited my last post to add some other articles in addition to ESPN's Insider piece. My only point was that the ESPN piece was speculative to the point of being a useless waste of cyber-ink. It seems to exist only so as to say "see, we said so way back on day one" if this does turn out to cost the Wilpons control of the team, or "we said there was no way of knowing" if it doesn't ... and therefore we were right either way, a trait that network seems to have carried over from their specialty of endless and useless pre-analysis of football games.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2011 09:01 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Another way to arrive at or close to the $1Billion damages figure is to take the $300 million that the New York Times claims is the amount being sought by Picard, and triple it (treble damages). Of course, the trustee would have to establish wrongdoing on Sterling's part to obtain treble damages. Two factors that will probably work against Sterling here are a) that Wilpon and Madoff were friends; and b) that Katz and Wilpon will be deemed to be sophisticated investors.

metirish Jan 29 2011 04:27 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Marti Silver from Georgi Vodka had a press conference today replete with Mets girls saying he wants in with the Wilpon's but only if he has a say in the day to day operations.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2011 10:48 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

According to this theory of Sterling's exposure to the Picard lawsuit, reported in the New York Post, the $48 million surplus over and above the $523M principal investment in the Madoff fund, does not represent Sterling's total Madoff surplus, but instead, Sterling's surplus from investments made solely on behalf of the Mets --- and that Sterling's total surplus might be in the hundreds of millions. Excerpt: Picard has said the Mets made nearly $48 million in Madoff's scam. He said the Mets Limited Partnership originally invested about $523 million -- but eventually withdrew about $571 million from the accounts. Yet, the Wilpon and Katz families, who own 100 percent of the team, are seeking four times that amount in a sale, leading to speculation that the [Wilpon and Katz] families made hundreds of millions in other non-Mets accounts and could owe much more to Madoff victims.

Ashie62 Jan 29 2011 11:03 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

It seems Wilpon want to consider a roughly 250 million dollar investment in the team but the minority owner will have no voting rights or say in day to day matters. That would be one hell of a "speculative" investment.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 30 2011 05:19 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Benjamin Grimm on Friday wrote: I bet Ed Kranepool is looking in his sofa cushions for as much loose change as he can find. So! I was right! The part that I didn't anticipate was that he'd be teaming up with... Martin Luther King! Martin Luther King III has a dream: to buy the New York Mets. The son of the late civil-rights leader is uniting with heavy hitters, including Mets legend Ed Kranepool; entrepreneur Donn Clendenon Jr., son of the 1969 Met World Series MVP; TV executive Larry Meli; and a number of unnamed deep-pocketed investors, the New York Post reported Sunday. "It's fitting with the legacy of Jackie Robinson essentially transferring to the Mets. What better place to have African-American ownership than with the Mets?" Meli said, noting that Major League Baseball has no African-American owners. "The time and place are right for it. It just seems to be the right mix of people." According to Meli, King, 53, who runs the King Center in Atlanta, is scheduled to come to New York this week to set up a meeting with the Wilpons, who announced Friday they are looking to sell up to 25 percent of the team because of financial woes created by the Bernie Madoff mess. King declined to comment on the particulars, but Meli said he and his group are looking to purchase at least 50 percent of the club. That could be a roadblock, but Meli said he hopes the two sides can work together. "I think in order for it to make sense it would have to be at least a 50-50 arrangement," said Meli, a trusted friend of King. Kranepool, 66, who is in the credit-card processing business, said: "Hopefully, something can be worked out. I certainly think I can be an asset to that organization. It depends on what they are looking for and how we can structure a deal that's good for everybody." Clendenon added he's "excited" about the venture. "I was born a Met," he said. The Wilpons have done much to honor the legacy of Jackie Robinson, so you would think they would be willing to work with the son of another African-American icon. King is a big sports fan, noted Meli, 58. King threw out the ceremonial first pitch at the Civil Rights Game in Atlanta in 2008. "What professional athlete wouldn't want to play baseball for Martin Luther King III?" Meli said. The Mets are worth $858 million, Forbes estimated last year. The King group claims to have more than $1 billion in assets.

Ashie62 Jan 30 2011 06:17 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

From "Ya Gotta Believe" to "I have a dream."

MFS62 Jan 30 2011 08:26 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Ashie62 wrote: From "Ya Gotta Believe" to "I have a dream." ... to "I have a team"? IIIRC, Donn Sr. was a good businessman in his own right. I think I read that after baseball, he became a VP at a large, famous corporation. (Bic?) I wonder how many people will find the CPF when they google Ed? Later

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 30 2011 08:53 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Ashie62 wrote: It seems Wilpon want to consider a roughly 250 million dollar investment in the team but the minority owner will have no voting rights or say in day to day matters. That would be one hell of a "speculative" investment. Not to mention a potential pool of legal liability. Sign me up!

batmagadanleadoff Jan 30 2011 08:57 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

BTW, did anybody else catch on that the reason that the Picard complaint against Sterling Equities is sealed is because Sterling --not the trustee-- asked the Court to seal it?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 30 2011 09:03 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Yup. Really, I'm not sure what the point of the conference was, other than to get in front of the story among the general public. Nothing they said/didn't say about their solicitations made it sound at all enticing to actual investors.

MFS62 Jan 30 2011 10:09 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I remember when the Hunt Brothers were trying to corner the silver market about 30 years ago. The price went up to over $50 an ounce, until the Fed stepped in. Then, the price dropped like an anchor, to as little as $2 an ounce. Many people bought when the price was rising. If some smart people got out before the drop, were the people who bought high and had to sell low able to sue the ones who got out with a profit? Hardly. That's why it was an investment - they were hoping to make a profit. But there is always risk in an investment. Unless the Wilpons can be proven to have been in on, or part of, the scheme, they should not be liable. Think of what would happen to all the financial markets if this suit were to be allowed. Anyone who lost money on an investment would be able to sue anyone who made a profit. It would result in total chaos. Later

Frayed Knot Jan 30 2011 10:16 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

The difference here is that money won or lost had little to do with how smart you were or when you got in or got out and a lot to do with how and when and IF Madoff credited you with "gains" on "investments" that were never made. It's the early investors who usually make out in Ponzi schemes not because they were more timely or smarter but solely on account of being first; you can't screw the first wave because then you'll never get the second and third waves on which the whole scheme depends. The trustee's goal here is to go after those who did get paid and spread those never-real "profits" around to soften the blow among those who lost a lot or even everything.

Ceetar Jan 30 2011 10:18 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Yup. Really, I'm not sure what the point of the conference was, other than to get in front of the story among the general public. Nothing they said/didn't say about their solicitations made it sound at all enticing to actual investors. Haven't they been criticized for not being in front of the story before? at least from a baseball aspect? I wonder if keeping the numbers sealed helps them work out a settlement out of court?

Gwreck Jan 30 2011 10:35 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Ceetar wrote: I wonder if keeping the numbers sealed helps them work out a settlement out of court? It has no effect. The only thing that "unsealing" numbers would do would be to expose them to new, additional liability (presumably for breaking a confidentiality agreement).

MFS62 Jan 30 2011 10:37 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Frayed Knot wrote: The difference here is that money won or lost had little to do with how smart you were or when you got in or got out and a lot to do with how and when and IF Madoff credited you with "gains" on "investments" that were never made. It's the early investors who usually make out in Ponzi schemes not because they were more timely or smarter but solely on account of being first; you can't screw the first wave because then you'll never get the second and third waves on which the whole scheme depends. Right. Then a lot will depend on whether the Wilpons asked for some money back (for whatever reason) or it was a contracturally scheduled payment, or if it was just given to them by Madoff to attract future investors. The devil will be in the details. Later

Edgy MD Jan 30 2011 03:24 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

MFS62 wrote: IIIRC, Donn Sr. was a good businessman in his own right. I think I read that after baseball, he became a VP at a large, famous corporation. (Bic?) Scripto, baby.

Edgy MD Jan 30 2011 03:24 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

metsguyinmichigan wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: So opening a new stadium made them worth LESS??? More likely, the economy tanking did.

metirish Jan 30 2011 05:07 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

batmagadanleadoff wrote: BTW, did anybody else catch on that the reason that the Picard complaint against Sterling Equities is sealed is because Sterling --not the trustee-- asked the Court to seal it? Various news outlets are going to court to unseal it....hearing is soon IIRC.

Edgy MD Jan 30 2011 05:17 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

So, on a scale of 0-100 (100 indicating 100% certainty), what percentage describes your opinon that the 'Pons were getting their money out with advance knowledge that they were caught in an illegal scheme?

metirish Jan 30 2011 05:28 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Edgy DC wrote: So, on a scale of 0-100 (100 indicating 100% certainty), what percentage describes your opinon that the 'Pons were getting their money out with advance knowledge that they were caught in an illegal scheme? Geez , their families were friends right? , good friends apparently....I'd say I am 65% convinced that the Wilpon's and Katz knew something was funny with the money.

Edgy MD Jan 30 2011 05:55 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

That's some pretty high certainty. And if that turns out to be true, their fortune is certainly vulnerable.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 30 2011 06:00 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Edgy DC wrote: So, on a scale of 0-100 (100 indicating 100% certainty), what percentage describes your opinon that the 'Pons were getting their money out with advance knowledge that they were caught in an illegal scheme? Even the alleged "victims" of this crime had to know there was something very fishy about Madoff. From what I understand any amount of prior research could have pointed you to the fact the funds were previously questioned as such. The investors were generally super wealthy and didn't get that way by being careless with their money. They are all licking their wounds now but I'm sure it was 99% a case of "I don;t wanna know how you do it Bernie, just give me those annual returns."

Edgy MD Jan 30 2011 06:50 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I don't know where I stand. I'm just trying to see all the angles.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 30 2011 07:07 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Let's see what the complaint alleges, if it's unsealed next week. If Sterling's surplus was in the hundreds of millions, then at the very least, they had to have known that Madoff's fund was a scam. If Wilpon was allegedly steering others into Madoff's scam, perhaps for a commission, then I'd lean towards "they were in on it". If the complaint is unsealed, anyone who was allegedly steered towards Madoff by Sterling (if that's even an allegation) will be able to go public with their side of the story. The unsealing of this complaint has the potential to elicit a shitstorm of follow-up bad news. OT: I hate your new avatar. Bobby V. looks like he put on 75 pounds, all in his stomach, and is sprouting devils' horns.

Ashie62 Jan 30 2011 11:15 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

MLK3, Krane and others to possibly form a group to buy no less than a majority stake in the Mets or the entire enchilda.. [url]http://mlb-facts-and-rumors.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22297882/27310973

metsguyinmichigan Jan 31 2011 07:39 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Heyman is such an idiot: H tweets: @SI_JonHeyman doesnt martlin luther king III have anything better to do? #mets

dgwphotography Jan 31 2011 08:09 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

metirish wrote: So, on a scale of 0-100 (100 indicating 100% certainty), what percentage describes your opinon that the 'Pons were getting their money out with advance knowledge that they were caught in an illegal scheme? Geez , their families were friends right? , good friends apparently....I'd say I am 65% convinced that the Wilpon's and Katz knew something was funny with the money. I'm starting to learn towards 85 - looks like this wasn't the only Ponzi scheme they've been a part of.. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/sport ... ml?_r=2&hp

metirish Jan 31 2011 08:24 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

dgwphotography wrote: So, on a scale of 0-100 (100 indicating 100% certainty), what percentage describes your opinon that the 'Pons were getting their money out with advance knowledge that they were caught in an illegal scheme? Geez , their families were friends right? , good friends apparently....I'd say I am 65% convinced that the Wilpon's and Katz knew something was funny with the money. I'm starting to learn towards 85 - looks like this wasn't the only Ponzi scheme they've been a part of.. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/sport ... ml?_r=2&hp Fucks sake Fred Can I go on record here and state with clarity of a sound mind that the Mets as we know them will be under new complete ownership within 12 to 18 months.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 31 2011 08:28 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I imagine that if this continues, Bud Selig will start pressuring the Wilpons to sell. He may have a bromance with Fred going on, but I think he understands the importance of not having a failing franchise (and by that I mean one that can't afford to compete with the big boys) in New York City.

Ceetar Jan 31 2011 08:40 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Interesting article, but I'm not sure what it means, if anything. Seems like the company that invested in that other scheme learned it's lesson and didn't invest with Madoff. Does that mean they knew before hand? Probably not. I think they'res a difference between checking after the company your investing in terms of what they're doing with your money versus actually investigating them for wrongdoing. Just because they noticed something they didn't like (whether or not it was an effect caused by illegal doings) and pulled out doesn't mean they were snooping around and investigating the specific practices of Madoff? Could it simply be that they wisened up to the garbage Madoff was spewing and just grew to not trust him with their money? It looks like they had to pay back 13 million of 30 invested. They invested 500 or so million in Madoff, if the same proportion holds true, it's roughly the 20-25% stake they're talking about selling.

metsmarathon Jan 31 2011 08:40 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

if i may ask... what's the proper course of action then? lets say i have a friend who tells me that he can make me rich, and that i need to invest with him. i scrounge up what i can, and sadly, it amounts to a meager $26.20, but i'm hoping it can increase to thepoint where i could be a player the next time the mets come up for sale. a few years down the line, as my buddy tells me that i'm getting richer and richer, and after i've invested more and more money with him - i'm up to $5,000, but he tells me he's sitting on a good $10,000 more - i start to think something is up. he's driving around a really fancy souped up corolla, and is always giving me a hard time when i ask him to outlay some cash. what can i do? i don't want to lose my money. yet, apparently, if i try to get it back, it can be taken from me. is the appropriate course of action to simply alert the authorities, and sit back and wait for the chips to fall wherever they may, and in the meantime leave their money in the hands of the guy they think is running a con? would the wilpons have been able to walk away with their principal investments had they withdrawn it (and only it), and then turned in madoff?

Edgy MD Jan 31 2011 08:44 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

A lot of that is playing itself out. My opinion on what I would do has changed a few times.

Valadius Jan 31 2011 10:34 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Who wants to bet Lenny Dykstra is going to come swaggering in on a balloon of hot air claiming he got some money somehow and wants in on the deal?

dgwphotography Jan 31 2011 11:29 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Valadius wrote: Who wants to bet Lenny Dykstra is going to come swaggering in on a balloon of hot air claiming he got some money somehow and wants in on the deal? hahaha - he has enough of his own lawsuits to worry about.

Ashie62 Jan 31 2011 12:17 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Avoid hedge funds. They are still largely unregulated and not terribly transparent.

Edgy MD Jan 31 2011 10:30 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I logged onto the Mets website as my wife called me from the next room. As I arrived at her side, the load finished and a press conf. clip played... something along the lines of "I just want to make clear that the matter of today's announcement will have no effect on the day-to-day operations of the Mets." Wifey starts cracking up and finishes the quote on her own. "You can be assured that Met managers will still make dumb decisions. That will not change. Players will continue to perform erratically, beat up their relatives, be arrested, and be rightfully charged with felonies. Fans need not fear that anything will change on that front."

Ashie62 Feb 01 2011 04:40 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Edgy DC wrote: I logged onto the Mets website as my wife called me from the next room. As I arrived at her side, the load finished and a press conf. clip played... something along the lines of "I just want to make clear that the matter of today's announcement will have no effect on the day-to-day operations of the Mets." Wifey starts cracking up and finishes the quote on her own. "You can be assured that Met managers will still make dumb decisions. That will not change. Players will continue to perform erratically, beat up their relatives, be arrested, and be rightfully charged with felonies. Fans need not fear that anything will change on that front." Sadly, you both may present our best case scenario.

Edgy MD Feb 01 2011 05:37 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Now how is Super Secret Seaver lasting beyond 4141? The whole system is out of order?

metirish Feb 01 2011 05:48 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

If Super Secret Seaver doesn't correspond with 4141then the whole concept falls apart, please ensure that it does.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 01 2011 08:14 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

The New York Times ain't letting go of the Mets-Madoff story. Excerpts: When the Mets negotiated their larger contracts with star players — complex deals with signing bonuses and performance incentives — they sometimes adopted the strategy of placing deferred money owed the players with Mr. Madoff’s investment firm. They would have to pay the player, but the owners of the club would be able to make money for themselves in the meantime. There never seemed to be much doubt about that, according to several people with knowledge of the arrangements. “Bernie was part of the business plan for the Mets,” a former employee of the club said. But Mr. Wilpon involved more than his team with Mr. Madoff. He also encouraged certain friends to invest. “The relationship between Fred and Bernie became closer and closer because Bernie was returning more and more to Fred in terms of his investments while Bernie is getting exposure from Fred and Saul,” said Jerry Reisman, a lawyer in Garden City, N.Y., who has represented 10 or so commercial real estate investors who lost a total of some $150 million to Mr. Madoff. “They both relied on one another,” he said. “It was reciprocal, symbiotic. They both relied on each other for money, and Bernie also relied on Fred for contacts.” According to an analysis of the list of Mr. Madoff’s 15,000 clients, done by Jamie Peppard, a former financial auditor who has studied the Madoff case, more than 500 accounts can be tied to Mr. Wilpon and Mr. Katz.

Valadius Feb 01 2011 08:26 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Oh no, don't tell me Bobby Bonilla is going to come calling.

Gwreck Feb 01 2011 08:33 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

That Bonilla's deferred payments were invested with Madoff is not new; that rumor was around a while ago but never confirmed.

metsmarathon Feb 02 2011 09:17 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

it reads to me that the wilpons, in their dealings with madoff, were an uncomfortable mix of negligent and naiive, far moreso that malicious and devious. i don't know if that makes me feel any better.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2011 09:20 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Gwreck wrote: That Bonilla's deferred payments were invested with Madoff is not new; that rumor was around a while ago but never confirmed. Yes. But the point that the NYT wants to make, I'm supposing here, is that the Mets were so sure that they could invest Bonilla's salary in a fund that would not only generate whatever interest rates Bonilla agreed to for his deferred payments, but on top of that, also generate a profit for the Mets. You have to assume that Bonilla was represented by a team of sophisticated lawyers and finance guys when he contracted with the Mets. If those "Madoff" rates of gain were as sure a thing as Wilpon allegedly thought, then Bonilla's team would've known about them, being savvy and all, and knowing the market. Bonilla's team would have then negotiated a higher rate of return for their client, thus cutting into the Mets anticipated profit. Maybe the point of all of this is that Bonilla's team never considered the kind of spread that the Mets were anticipating, because that spread was unrealistic. Do you see where this is going?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 02 2011 10:00 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I'm kinda beginning to.

Edgy MD Feb 02 2011 10:09 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

metsmarathon wrote: it reads to me that the wilpons, in their dealings with madoff, were an uncomfortable mix of negligent and naiive, far moreso that malicious and devious. i don't know if that makes me feel any better. I'll root for negligent and naive. I'm in bed with these people.

Ashie62 Feb 02 2011 10:10 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I think I do...Could Wilpon be so dense not to see through this?

batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2011 10:20 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Ashie62 wrote: I think I do...Could Wilpon be so dense not to see through this? That's the [crossout]million dollar[/crossout] [crossout]47.8 million dollar[/crossout] [crossout]300 million dollar[/crossout] [crossout]400 million dollar[/crossout] [crossout]500 million dollar[/crossout] one thousand million(?) dollar question.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2011 10:22 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Edgy DC wrote: metsmarathon wrote: it reads to me that the wilpons, in their dealings with madoff, were an uncomfortable mix of negligent and naiive, far moreso that malicious and devious. i don't know if that makes me feel any better. I'll root for negligent and naive. I'm in bed with these people. But do you wanna be?

Edgy MD Feb 02 2011 10:27 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Well, I can think of some sexier people to be in bed with. Now, this has to play out. If they're a party to this, they likely won't survive as owners. If they're not, they likely will. In the meantime, I'll be excited to get some new blood in here.

Lefty Specialist Feb 02 2011 10:30 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Remember that Madoff was a financial icon, former head of NASDAQ. It was inconceivable to people that he'd be a Ponzi-schemer. If they got the tap on the shoulder that they'd made the cut and Bernie would consent to investing their money, they felt great. In a situation like that, you're not asking questions, you're looking at the client base. If all these rich and powerful people are using him, he must be good, right? That's how it went on for so long- trust. Most Ponzi schemes fall apart of their own weight pretty quickly. But the exclusivity, the feeling of belonging to a private club that the common man couldn't enter, kept it going. There were always people outside clamoring to get in, so there was always a supply of new money. The fact that the 90's and 00's were for the most part a pretty good time for investors helped to mask things, too. The high, consistent paper returns may have been good, but people didn't think they were impossible, especially to a guy as smart and plugged-in as Madoff. It's only when the market turned down sharply that the scheme was exposed. Fred could be easily blinded. But he should have had people working for him, the real bean-counters, who should have said that something was fishy. Who knows, maybe they did.

Valadius Feb 02 2011 11:58 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Who else besides Bonilla and Frank Cashen had their deferred payments invested with Madoff?

Frayed Knot Feb 02 2011 01:46 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Valadius wrote: Who else besides Bonilla and Frank Cashen had their deferred payments invested with Madoff? Probably everyone who had a deferred structure. The Times article kind of implies that deferring money so you can invest the remainder during the interim was unique to the Mets or something but that's what everyone does with deferred payments, essentially it's the purpose of structuring a contract with deferred payments. The problem comes up in that not all investments are made with a swindler.

G-Fafif Feb 02 2011 01:53 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Bret Saberhagen is another 1990s Met riding the long-term gravy train, according to WSJ's Mike Sielski last year: Years earlier, [Dennis] Gilbert had negotiated with former Mets general manager Al Harazin a similar deal for Bret Saberhagen, who pitched for the team from 1992 to 1995. For 25 years starting in 2004, Mr. Saberhagen receives annual deferred payments of $250,000. So when the Mets decided to buy out Mr. Bonilla's contract, they had precedent and a template already in place for such an agreement. That wasn't a walkaway deal. That was part of Saberhagen's contract. And nobody mentioned Madoff in the context of Bret the Met, though one assumes if investing deferred monies with him was the norm, it was indeed done.

Ceetar Feb 02 2011 01:54 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Frayed Knot wrote: Valadius wrote: Who else besides Bonilla and Frank Cashen had their deferred payments invested with Madoff? Probably everyone who had a deferred structure. The Times article kind of implies that deferring money so you can invest the remainder during the interim was unique to the Mets or something but that's what everyone does with deferred payments, essentially it's the purpose of structuring a contract with deferred payments. The problem comes up in that not all investments are made with a swindler. the Yankees deferred some of..Rivera? Jeter?s contract. Beltran has 5million deferred for 2011.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2011 03:07 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Forbes sez Mets book value is negative $225M Excerpt: Ever since he bought controlling interest of the New York Mets in 2002, Fred Wilpon has used leverage to juice his MLB franchise. He borrowed heavily to buy out Nelson Doubleday, even promising his former partner tens of millions of dollars if the Mets ever moved into a new ballpark (they did, with Citi Field opening in 2009). His team is also on the hook for $40 million a year in debt service tied to the bonds used to finance Citi Field (the bonds now carry a junk rating). Now all this debt could very well come crashing down on Wilpon as a result of his involvement with Bernie Madoff. As I wrote earlier, the Mets and their lease to Citi Field are worth about $845 million. But there is $375 million of debt attached to the Mets franchise and $695 million tied to the ballpark, leaving these assets with an aggregate negative book value of $225 million.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2011 03:15 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Charting the Mets and Yankees attendance -1962-2010. (from another article on the Madoff mess:

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 02 2011 03:17 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

So if I "buy" 20-25% of that, can I get that $45-57M in cash? 'Cause the deferred-payment thing has a little stigma about it these days.

metirish Feb 02 2011 06:10 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Can Mark Cuban fuck off already?

Edgy MD Feb 02 2011 06:27 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I'm not sure if investing deferred salary money in their Madoff fund further implicates them. If I had access to that fund and believed in its legitimacy, that's what I'd do. It would smell fishier if they were getting those returns but were still putting larger amounts elsewhere, no? Maybe?

batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2011 09:56 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

All quiet on the NYT front tonight.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2011 10:00 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

SNY May Be Part of Mets Deal The Wall Street Journal reports that: The New York Mets would consider selling a portion of its share in the regional sports cable network SNY if it can't otherwise sell a minority stake in the team, according to a person familiar with the matter. Team executives announced on a conference call Friday that they would consider selling up to 25% of the ballclub to a minority partner. They also said Friday that a stake in SNY would not be part of the deal. The person familiar with the matter said the team is confident it can sell a minority share of the ballclub without including a piece of SNY but would consider including a piece of SNY in the deal "if and when it became a necessity." A Mets spokesman declined to comment. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 59136.html Everything's negotiable, they say.

Edgy MD Feb 03 2011 07:43 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Seems like a minor print war happening here, with the News bending over backwards to discredit the Times, running hard with a front-page story accusing the Gray Lady of being a pawn and being fed a story by Picard. This guy sums up both sides.

Edgy MD Feb 03 2011 01:33 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Breakdown! Leak Flap Upends Talks Between Madoff Trustee, Mets Owners By MICHAEL ROTHFELD Negotiations in a potential settlement between the New York Mets owners and the trustee recovering money for Bernard Madoff's victims broke down Thursday amid a public dispute over the leaking of information from a sealed lawsuit. "We are no longer pursuing settlement negotiations," said David Sheehan, a lawyer for the trustee Irving Picard, who filed a lawsuit against Mets owner Fred Wilpon and his associates, under seal in December as negotiations continued. After Mr. Wilpon announced last Friday that up to quarter of the baseball team would be up for sale, details of the lawsuit leaked out. Lawyers for Mr. Wilpon criticized the leaks in court papers and media interviews. Mr. Sheehan said the leaks didn't come from his office. "Defendants cannot cry confidentiality to this court while publicly attacking the complaint and continuing to frustrate the public's right to know the contents of the same complaint they disparage," Mr. Sheehan said in a letter sent on Thursday to Judge Burton Lifland. The original move to seal the lawsuit was opposed in federal bankruptcy court by several media organizations, which have filed a request to make the complaint public. The hearing to decide whether to unseal the lawsuit is scheduled for next week. Mr. Picard's lawsuit seeks more than $300 million in what the trustee said were false profits withdrawn by Mr. Wilpon, his associates, relatives and related business entities from the Ponzi scheme. The lawsuit also seeks additional money, with Mr. Picard alleging that Mr. Wilpon and his associates knew or should have known that Mr. Madoff's business was a fraud. In court papers, lawyers for Mr. Wilpon and his associates have called the accusations "baseless."

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 03 2011 02:00 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

You know what would be awesome? A fistfight.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 03 2011 02:03 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I have a real problem believing that any improper information leaks came from a Wilpon-run enterprise. (Also, that there's any gambling going on in this establishment.)

Edgy MD Feb 03 2011 02:04 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I was looking forward to Fred using the word "motherfucker" during a press conference.

Ceetar Feb 03 2011 02:05 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: You know what would be awesome? A fistfight. between two goalies! wait, that was yesterday.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 03 2011 02:33 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

"Last night I had a dream. When I got back to Flushing, I had one hell of a buzzing in my ear. First, I swatted away Francesa, For being a giant pain in the rear. I made hay of Heyman, For his many crimes. I done whupped on those wussies Spilling ink at the Times. You know I’m bad. Just last week, I shook up Sherman, Now I'm-a pick on Picard. I’m so clean, I make janitors hard. I'm so sweet, man, Your molar going to howl. When I gets to Irv, He'll lose control of his bowels. I'm not much for firing, but I'll give you the chills. You ain't seen nothing, less you seen Freddy Wills!"

Benjamin Grimm Feb 03 2011 02:45 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I hope that when I'm Fred Wilpon's age, my face doesn't look nearly as mushy as his does now.

Edgy MD Feb 03 2011 02:53 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I'm gonna fight 'em all An Irving Madoff army couldn't hold me back That mother ripped us off It's not on me to pay you muthafuckas back And I'm talking to my son at night Because he runs the Mets And you know I'm gonna blow your mind A Charlie Samuels bet And the message coming from my guys Says leave it alone! Don't want to hear about it I invested all my money with a freak from Hell Everyone knows about it From the mnor leaguers to big fat Heath Bell And if I catch your lawyer come my way I'm gonna serve it to you I got a lawyer and a case o' beer But thats what I'll do And the feeling coming from my bones Is leaking to Jim Rome! I'm going to Buffalo Far away from Queens to the Triple-A I'm calling Marky Ruffalo I bet he's got some cash that'll help me pay And I'm bleeding, and I'm bleeding, and I'm bleeding Right before the Lord All my team is being sold from me And I will own no more And the words coming from my blood Are leaking to Jim Rome!

batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2011 02:54 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale) Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Feb 03 2011 02:57 PM

Wilpon, Sterling, agree to unseal Madoff complaint. http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/sports/M ... 12109.html Lawyers for the owners of the New York Mets are dropping their efforts to keep records sealed in their connection with the Madoff Ponzi scheme, it was revealed today. Karen Wagner, who represents the Wilpons and other Mets owners, told Bankruptcy Court Judge Burton they now "agree that the complaint should be unsealed immediately." Wagner said leaks in the case have made keeping the documents secret no longer practical. NBC-New York and The New York Times had filed motions with Judge Burton, requesting to seek access to the documents. To date, the Court has offered no explanation as to why it was keeping the records sealed. The Mets owners said last week that they were going to try to sell part of the team to cover what could turn out to be hundreds of millions of dollars the team owners owe from profits they took out of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme. The Mets owners deny wrongdoing or having had any knowledge Madoff was a fraud. The Trustee has alleged the Mets owners should have known or suspected a criminal scheme was underway based on their alleged outsized profits. Details of the allegations in the court document remain secret but could become public soon.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 03 2011 02:54 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I suppose if nothing else this case teaches M et fans about smart investing. Maybe. Picard's $1 billion compliant against Morgan Stanley, also alleging they "shoula known" was unsealed today: The complaint contains a redacted email from a JPMorgan risk officer warning as early as June, 2007 that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme, and using the bank to hold his money. "For whatever it[']s worth, I am sitting at lunch with [JPMC Employee 1] who just told me that there is a well-known cloud over the head of Madoff and that his returns are speculated to be part of a [P]onzi scheme," the email reads.

Frayed Knot Feb 03 2011 03:03 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Of course, most of the people the trustee is collecting [u:1xxu8kh8]for[/u:1xxu8kh8] should have known too.

Ashie62 Feb 03 2011 03:18 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Well I work for MS and I didn't know Negative 225 Million book value? Too late for TARP!

Frayed Knot Feb 03 2011 03:34 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

MS? Point being that the trustee is partially basing his suits on the idea that the ones who made out on the Madoff deals "should have known" that the return rates and success rates were too good to be true. But the same could be said for the folks who ultimately lost on the deal; after all, they were most likely seeing paper "profits" in the same range and presumably also not blowing a lot of whistles about it. Not that that makes the whole suit unworthy or anything. It's just a bit ironic to claim money from one set of folks on the basis that they should have known better in favor of clients who (assuming the first bunch weren't in cahoots) were pretty much in the same boat.

Valadius Feb 03 2011 03:42 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Frayed Knot wrote: MS? Morgan Stanley, I presume?

Ashie62 Feb 03 2011 04:16 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

You betcha since 1990.

Ashie62 Feb 03 2011 04:25 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Frayed Knot wrote: MS? Point being that the trustee is partially basing his suits on the idea that the ones who made out on the Madoff deals "should have known" that the return rates and success rates were too good to be true. But the same could be said for the folks who ultimately lost on the deal; after all, they were most likely seeing paper "profits" in the same range and presumably also not blowing a lot of whistles about it. Not that that makes the whole suit unworthy or anything. It's just a bit ironic to claim money from one set of folks on the basis that they should have known better in favor of clients who (assuming the first bunch weren't in cahoots) were pretty much in the same boat. The suit claims that financial firms such as JPM and MS suspected Madoff was fradulent and allowed him to trade through their desk. That is putting a firms interest ahead of a client. Any client, even those not trading with Madoff. ANY JPM customer. Simply put, If I purchase 100 shares of Apple for a customer my client has been harmed. Why, because by my firm doing any trading with a knowing fraud puts my customer at a disadvantage. Very, Very hard to prove..but, in JPM's case I suspect Jamie Diamond will cut a deal at somewhat less than 6 billion requested.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 03 2011 05:55 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Pretty sure the trustee is just doing what any bankruptcy trustee is supposed to do -- he's going after what he can to help the people who were wiped out. This idea that its personal (see Lupica today) is way off-base.

Edgy MD Feb 03 2011 06:55 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Sportswriters tend to think it's personal. Beltran msising the tript o the hospital? Castillo dropping the pop? Jeter diving into the stands? They've got to frame it as personal. If they don't have a soap opera, they don't know what to write about. Lupica's a tool, though.

Ashie62 Feb 03 2011 07:59 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Pretty sure the trustee is just doing what any bankruptcy trustee is supposed to do -- he's going after what he can to help the people who were wiped out. This idea that its personal (see Lupica today) is way off-base. 100 percent correct..

The Second Spitter Feb 04 2011 04:34 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Ashie62 wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: MS? Point being that the trustee is partially basing his suits on the idea that the ones who made out on the Madoff deals "should have known" that the return rates and success rates were too good to be true. But the same could be said for the folks who ultimately lost on the deal; after all, they were most likely seeing paper "profits" in the same range and presumably also not blowing a lot of whistles about it. Not that that makes the whole suit unworthy or anything. It's just a bit ironic to claim money from one set of folks on the basis that they should have known better in favor of clients who (assuming the first bunch weren't in cahoots) were pretty much in the same boat. The suit claims that financial firms such as JPM and MS suspected Madoff was fradulent and allowed him to trade through their desk. That is putting a firms interest ahead of a client. Any client, even those not trading with Madoff. ANY JPM customer. Simply put, If I purchase 100 shares of Apple for a customer my client has been harmed. Why, because by my firm doing any trading with a knowing fraud puts my customer at a disadvantage. Very, Very hard to prove..but, in JPM's case I suspect Jamie Diamond will cut a deal at somewhat less than 6 billion requested. Except Wilpon did not owe a fiduciary duty to the other members of the LLC.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 04 2011 10:38 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Here's the suit: [url]http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/metsmadoffsuit02042011.PDF

Ashie62 Feb 04 2011 10:44 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Every Wilpon, Katz, their relatives and all Wilpon business are finished. Start with page 137. Good God, what a fuckin greedy prick Wilpon is. Thanks to JCL for this...

metsmarathon Feb 04 2011 11:11 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

749. To obtain a coveted BLMIS account through Sterling, however, was not easy. Sterling internally needed to approve the account, and Saul Katz had the final say. Far more outsiders were turned down than actually got into the elite pool of Madoff investors through Sterling. 750. Sterling took great strides to insulate the outsider account-holders from Madoff, as one of the requirements to obtain a BLMIS account through Sterling was that all communications regarding the account had to go through Sterling; never directly through Madoff or anyone else at BLMIS. this does not look good. i'm beginning to reverse my field on this whole thing...

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 04 2011 11:18 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Katz out of the bag. Not sure still how much they coulda/shoulda known, but amazin how closely the whole Wilpon fortune was related to Madoff.

metsguyinmichigan Feb 04 2011 11:19 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Well, they're not ducking the thing. STATEMENT FROM FRED WILPON, CO-FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN, AND SAUL B. KATZ, CO-FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT OF STERLING EQUITIES, ON BEHALF OF THE STERLING EQUITIES PARTNERS AND THEIR FAMILIES Dear Mets Fans: Following days of leaks and press speculation, the Court - with the agreement of the Sterling partners - has released the complaint that was previously filed under seal. The Trustee's lawsuit is an outrageous "strong arm" effort to try to force a settlement by threatening to ruin our reputations and businesses which we have built for over 50 years. This is a flagrant abuse of the Trustee's authority and we will not succumb to his pressure. The conclusions in the complaint are not supported by the facts. While they may make for good headlines, they are abusive, unfair and untrue. We categorically reject them. We should not be made victims twice over - the first time by Madoff, and again by the Trustee's actions. The plain truth is that not one of the Sterling partners ever knew or suspected that Madoff ran a Ponzi scheme. Because the Trustee has no evidence to support his claims even after a year-and-a-half review of over 700,000 pages of documents and many, many hours of depositions, he has created a claim that we "knew or should have known" that Madoff was a fraud. Why should we "have known" when the SEC and other government agencies that had oversight responsibilities did not know? In fact, the SEC reported that Madoff was above board and legitimate, even after it investigated him many times. Madoff was not a hedge fund, but an SEC regulated broker dealer and like millions of other Americans, we trusted the brokerage statements we received. The Trustee is suing not only for what he defines as "fictitious profits" but for monies that we deposited with Madoff over almost 25 years. That is outrageous, unfounded and inconsistent with the law. Let us be clear, the Trustee is attempting to seize money originally invested with Madoff, which was earned from the Sterling businesses. The Trustee also alleges that we were blinded to Madoff's crimes because our businesses "depended" on the returns. That is complete nonsense. We have good, sound businesses that were successful years before we invested with Madoff, including both real estate and the New York Mets. Those businesses never depended on returns from Madoff. Our previous statements All of the public statements we have issued to date have been accurate and true. We said when the fraud was first disclosed that the losses we suffered in the Madoff scheme would have no impact on the operations of the New York Mets and that was true. At the time, we could not have anticipated that a trustee would file a lawsuit seeking to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in addition to the substantial amounts that Madoff had stolen from us. As we announced last Friday, we are now seeking one or more strategic partners in the New York Mets specifically because of the uncertainty created by the lawsuit filed by the Trustee in the Madoff bankruptcy. We thought that Madoff was a friend for 25 years. That is why his betrayal was so painful. Each of the Sterling partners and their families invested with Madoff in good faith right up to the day his crime was exposed. We were as shocked as the rest of the world when the money in our accounts vanished along with the billions he swindled from thousands of other innocent people. In summary, we are proud of what we have built and achieved as a family. We have worked very hard for our entire lives, always with character and integrity. We will not sit still while the Trustee or anyone else makes these outrageous and irresponsible allegations. People who know us know the truth about who we are and what our life's work represents. Again, we have done nothing wrong. We played by the rules. We abided by the court order not to discuss the lawsuit. Others did not. We are confident we will win in court. Complete coverage at mets.com » STATEMENT BY ROBERT B. FISKE, JR., KAREN E. WAGNER, AND DAVID L. CAPLAN OF DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP ON BEHALF OF THE STERLING DEFENDANTS Following days of leaks and press speculation, the Court, with the agreement of the Sterling partners, has released the complaint against our clients that was previously filed under seal. While the heated rhetoric in the complaint may generate headlines, it is not supported by the facts, the law, or the extensive discovery record developed by the Trustee before he formulated the complaint - numerous depositions and over 700,000 pages of documents provided by the Sterling partners over the last year and a half. The bottom line is that the Sterling partners were innocent victims of the Madoff fraud, and the Trustee's massive discovery effort did not uncover one shred of evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, the complaint further victimizes the Sterling partners by arguing that they "knew or should have known" that Madoff was a fraud and therefore are somehow liable for amounts beyond their very substantial losses. This suggestion is false. With regard to the complaint: The complaint appears to contend that, because the Sterling partners are wealthy and successful individuals, they should have known Madoff was not trading any securities and was engaging in a Ponzi scheme. Yet the Sterling partners had over $500 million in their Madoff accounts at the time of his failure - some put in only days before - and all of it lost. Anyone who knows Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz knows that they would not have dealt for one minute with someone they thought might be engaged in fraud. Moreover, as a matter of elementary common sense, no rational person who thinks his broker might be a fraud would leave such a substantial sum with him. Contrary to what the Trustee asserts, the returns on the Sterling-related brokerage accounts were not "staggering," "easy money," or "too good to be true." The $300 million of profit alleged in the complaint, even if accurate, would not be "staggering" or extraordinary when viewed in the context of the amount of principal invested over the past 25 years. In addition, the $300 million claimed in the complaint reflects only those accounts that the Trustee has selected for inclusion because they were profitable. It ignores numerous accounts that, in the Trustee's parlance, were "net losers," which, according to our clients' analysis, total approximately $160 million. Madoff investments did not "fuel" our clients' operating businesses. The Sterling partners' wealth was generated by their hard-earned success in real estate, sports, media, and other businesses - not by investments with Madoff. The complaint also ignores the fact that Madoff was viewed as a person of considerable stature in the financial community. He had been the chairman of the board of directors of NASDAQ, a member of the NASD board of governors, and a member of the board of what now is SIFMA - an eminent figure in the investment world. He also partnered with prominent financial institutions to create Primex, an electronic auction trading system that was approved by the SEC and adopted by NASDAQ. Moreover, the Sterling partners knew, and relied upon, the fact that the SEC - the federal agency charged with uncovering and prosecuting fraud - had investigated Madoff and taken no action against him. For 25 years the Sterling partners saw nothing to indicate that Madoff was not trading securities as he was reporting he did. Moreover, the partners took legitimate comfort from the fact that numerous highly regarded and sophisticated lending institutions readily accepted their Madoff investments as security for multi-million dollar loans. The Sterling partners' dealings with their broker were entirely lawful. While the Trustee calls payments made to them "fictitious profit," he ignores a large and consistent body of state and federal law that permits a customer of a registered broker dealer to rely on statements he receives from the broker - and which imposes no investigatory obligation upon a customer who in any event would have no way of confirming what the broker was doing. Payments made in connection with those statements are lawful. Our entire system of customer dealings with brokers is structured so that customers receive, and rely on, their account statements and confirmations. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply incorrect. The complaint appears to argue that the partners should have known that Madoff was a fraud for three principal reasons: First, they were friendly with Madoff and could have asked him if he was engaging in a fraud. Neither the law nor common sense supports such a proposition. Second, in 2002 the partners diversified their securities investments by establishing a new company to be run by Peter Stamos. The Sterling partners were investors and had no role with respect to investment decisions. Nonetheless, we understand the complaint to contend that, because two of the partners were involved in the selection of Mr. Stamos and the establishment of the fund, they became expert in market trading, hedge fund due diligence, and broker dealer regulation, and, therefore, if people said things to them like "I don't know how Madoff does it," the Sterling partners should have realized that Madoff was doing no trading and running a Ponzi scheme. Thus, the theory of the complaint appears to be that comments of this type should have led the Sterling partners to reach a conclusion that the SEC, with the benefit of substantially more information, trained fraud investigators, and subpoena power, did not reach. Similarly, we understand the complaint to claim that, because Merrill Lynch, when it acquired part of the Stamos company in 2007, would not permit investment with managers employing "black box" or other similar strategies, the Sterling partners should have concluded that Madoff's registered brokerage operation was fraudulent. In fact, many people invest with managers using such proprietary strategies, which are entirely lawful. That Merrill Lynch decided not to means nothing. Third, the complaint suggests that, because Sterling Stamos had invested in the Bayou hedge fund, the Sterling partners should have realized that Madoff was a fraud. Again, the proposition is wide of the mark - the partners had no involvement with the Bayou investment, and Bayou was a completely different situation. Bayou was a hedge fund. Madoff's brokerage entity, on the other hand, was a registered broker dealer, regulated by the SEC, that issued statements reflecting trading for customers. The complaint is further undercut by another fundamental fact not mentioned by the Trustee: if the Sterling partners had thought Madoff might be engaged in a fraud - a conclusion they never reached - their recourse would have been to go to the SEC, the watchdog that licensed Madoff and that is there to protect customers. This would have been a futile exercise. As we know now, the fraud would not have been uncovered. The complaint, in our opinion, is an unwarranted reach by the Trustee. The Sterling partners lost more than money in the Madoff fraud - they lost faith in someone they thought was a trusted friend. But their faith in the legal system remains strong, and we are confident they will prevail.

metsmarathon Feb 04 2011 11:23 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

The complaint is further undercut by another fundamental fact not mentioned by the Trustee: if the Sterling partners had thought Madoff might be engaged in a fraud - a conclusion they never reached - their recourse would have been to go to the SEC, the watchdog that licensed Madoff and that is there to protect customers. This would have been a futile exercise. As we know now, the fraud would not have been uncovered. zing!

metirish Feb 04 2011 11:23 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Katz out of the bag. Not sure still how much they coulda/shoulda known, but amazin how closely the whole Wilpon fortune was related to Madoff. remember when this all dropped and Jeff getting all incredulous when asked about the finances and talking about how they as a family diversify their portfolios , it's what us rich do you morons.

Edgy MD Feb 04 2011 11:25 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Well, considering how little he entered this game with, climbing from a 1% owner of a $21.1 million franchise to owning the full $800 million baby (along with family members), you would expect there was a slick shell game going on --- wealth moving around quickly as needed rather than being available outright. What you maybe wouldn't expect is that when his hands got too old to move the shells around, there wasn't a ball under any of them.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 04 2011 11:28 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

metirish wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Katz out of the bag. Not sure still how much they coulda/shoulda known, but amazin how closely the whole Wilpon fortune was related to Madoff. remember when this all dropped and Jeff getting all incredulous when asked about the finances and talking about how they as a family diversify their portfolios , it's what us rich do you morons. Oh yeah. "It's called diversifying."

Gwreck Feb 04 2011 11:32 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I haven't read the complaint yet, but my initial reaction from the Press Statements is that they seem to contradict Jeff Wilpon's prior contentions that estimates of the Mets' losses were inaccurate or overstated. According to the press statement, the Sterling entities had "over $500 million" in Madoff accounts that was lost.

Frayed Knot Feb 04 2011 11:38 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

So they either made money, lost some, or lost a ton depending on what day of the week it is. I can't get too involved in this stuff until we're within a Prince Fielder HR of what the facts are supposed to be.

Ceetar Feb 04 2011 11:45 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Frayed Knot wrote: So they either made money, lost some, or lost a ton depending on what day of the week it is. I can't get too involved in this stuff until we're within a Prince Fielder HR of what the facts are supposed to be. Also depending on how you define complicated words like "loss" and "profit". And people really do this for a living? I'm going to kick a laywer the next time I see one.

metirish Feb 04 2011 11:48 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I expect a full report from our resident lawyer on this.

Edgy MD Feb 04 2011 11:51 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

We certainly have more than one.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 04 2011 11:53 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Saul's buddy from LI Jewish Hospital teamed the Wlkatzes for the "Sterling Stamos" fund that invested in the bayou scheme. After Madoff was arrested: in a telling December 12, 2008 email exchange, one Sterling Stamos employee confirmed that Sterling Stamos’ Chief Investment Officer had fingered Madoff as a fraud for years: [A] lot of our investors gave us crap about not generating returns like Madoff’s[…]and I guess our CIO always said it was a scam, ‘too good to be true[.]’ Well there u [sic] go, it was too good to be true[.] The Chief Investment Officer that this employee referred to in her email is Chachra, who had the official title of Chief Investment Strategist and worked at Sterling Stamos from its inception in June 2002 through late 2009.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 04 2011 11:57 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

More from Stamos: Fortunately, our firm did not invest with Madoff. That firm and fund wouldn't make it through our risk and ops controls--lack of transparency, no third party administrator, etc. Unfortunately, our partners--Saul and Fred--against our recommendations invested as individuals and through their real estate firm. Would be funny if it were John Stamos.

Edgy MD Feb 04 2011 12:00 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I have one of those big brains --- like the guys on Star Trek with the vibrating veins on the side of the skull --- but I'd be lying if I told you I could see all (or most) of the angles here.

metsmarathon Feb 04 2011 12:02 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Ceetar wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: So they either made money, lost some, or lost a ton depending on what day of the week it is. I can't get too involved in this stuff until we're within a Prince Fielder HR of what the facts are supposed to be. Also depending on how you define complicated words like "loss" and "profit". And people really do this for a living? I'm going to kick a laywer the next time I see one. can't wait for the next board meet-up!

Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2011 12:05 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Frayed Knot wrote: I can't get too involved in this stuff until we're within a Prince Fielder HR of what the facts are supposed to be. Me neither. I really only care about what happens on the field. This may have an impact on that, but I can't plunge myself into all these details. Too arcane for me anyway. I'm not one of the Wilpon haters (who are legion); I'm pretty indifferent to them. But if this lawsuit is going to go on for years (as it well might) then I'd prefer to see them sell their entire interest in the Mets. And I hope that Bud Selig (I hate having to count on him for anything) uses the "best interest of the game" to pressue them into doing just that.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 04 2011 12:07 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

The complaint is further undercut by another fundamental fact not mentioned by the Trustee: if the Sterling partners had thought Madoff might be engaged in a fraud - a conclusion they never reached - their recourse would have been to go to the SEC, the watchdog that licensed Madoff and that is there to protect customers. This would have been a futile exercise. As we know now, the fraud would not have been uncovered. zing! I'm guessing that the SEC's failure to shut down Madoff earlier, by itself, would not be enough to clear Sterling. One issue here might simply be whether or not Wilpon/Katz reported Madoff to the SEC -- but not how the SEC might have then responded.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 04 2011 12:12 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Benjamin Grimm wrote: ... if this lawsuit is going to go on for years (as it well might) then I'd prefer to see them sell their entire interest in the Mets. And I hope that Bud Selig (I hate having to count on him for anything) uses the "best interest of the game" to pressue them into doing just that. I agree. But I thought that Selig was named Commissioner of Baseball primarily to act in the best interests of the owners rather than the game.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 04 2011 12:12 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Edgy DC wrote: I have one of those big brains --- like the guys on Star Trek with the vibrating veins on the side of the skull --- but I'd be lying if I told you I could see all (or most) of the angles here. Same (at least about the latter part). And that's why we'll never be meddlesome part-owners of our favorite sports squadron.

bmfc1 Feb 04 2011 12:15 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

"Known or should have known" is going to be tough to prove. The complaints tries to show that the Wilpons and Katz are savvy businessmen but they are experts in real estate and not Wall Street. Maybe it can be proved but I'm guessing that eventually, Piccard realizes that he can't prove anything and the Wilpons/Katz give him a good amount, but far less than sought, to settle.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 04 2011 12:16 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I've read enough to conclude Katz is/was 100% guilty of willful ignorance of the warning signs of fraud, and I'm almost surprised he wasn't rounded up with Madoff. Still don't know if that means the Mets will have to cough it up tho.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 04 2011 12:18 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

BTW, I think that Sterling agreed to unseal the complaint only because the presiding judge tipped his intentions at an earlier conference: the judge told both sides that he was leaning towards deciding the motion to unseal in favor of the NYT and unsealing the complaint. I forget where I read or heard this, though. (I have no first hand personal knowledge of this. I'm just sayin')

smg58 Feb 04 2011 12:24 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

bmfc1 wrote: "Known or should have known" is going to be tough to prove. That's terrible language. If the former is true, there's no need to include the latter. By including the latter, it implies that they can't prove that the Wilpons knew. And "should have known" means what, exactly? A number of investment firms were suspicious about Madoff but didn't act on their suspicions. The Wilpons, as bmfc pointed out, are real-estate specialists.

Edgy MD Feb 04 2011 12:36 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Be fair, they're crackerjack baseball men also.

Ashie62 Feb 04 2011 12:39 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

smg58 wrote: bmfc1 wrote: "Known or should have known" is going to be tough to prove. That's terrible language. If the former is true, there's no need to include the latter. By including the latter, it implies that they can't prove that the Wilpons knew. And "should have known" means what, exactly? A number of investment firms were suspicious about Madoff but didn't act on their suspicions. The Wilpons, as bmfc pointed out, are real-estate specialists. Some of those "suspicious" firms are being sued. Publicly, Fred is finished in the court of public opinion.. It's gonna be one empty stadium this season and what FA in his right mind would sign with the Mets if this suit is still out there a year from? Its over..And the prick even knocked down Shea

Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2011 12:39 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I agree. But I thought that Selig was named Commissioner of Baseball primarily to act in the best interests of the owners rather than the game. Well, you could argue that it's in the best interests of the owners, collectively, not to have a big mess in one of the larger markets. (I'm not sure how true that really is, but it's an argument that could be made.)

metirish Feb 04 2011 12:42 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I expect to see a lot of Koufax at Spring Training , he's a good diversion for Fred.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 04 2011 12:42 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

smg58 wrote: bmfc1 wrote: "Known or should have known" is going to be tough to prove. That's terrible language. If the former is true, there's no need to include the latter. By including the latter, it implies that they can't prove that the Wilpons knew. And "should have known" means what, exactly? A number of investment firms were suspicious about Madoff but didn't act on their suspicions. The Wilpons, as bmfc pointed out, are real-estate specialists. And besides... what does "should have known" mean? Had opportunity to know? Had ample circumstantial proof if they'd looked? That they should have been educated better on how their meat was made, or that they presumably were? If I direct someone to order from a menu I either (A) know is poisoned ahead of time or (B) find out is poisoned prior to meal service/as the meal is being served, and I say nothing, then I'm criminally liable-- and liable, as well, in a civil suit-- for that person's illness/death, yes? But if I've eaten there before, had good experiences (despite never having been in the kitchen/asking exactly what I'm having), and don't know ahead of time, or indeed, until a coroner's report tells me so, then how the hell can I be liable? I'm not a chef, or a restaurant professional... I'm a (semi-)informed customer making a recommendation.

Edgy MD Feb 04 2011 12:43 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

To heck with the court of public opinion. Steinbrenner was an out-of-control autocrat who treated the rules and the law as an inconvenience and he has virgins dancing on his grave. Let's stick to the court of business law.

Ashie62 Feb 04 2011 12:43 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Will the trustee take Ollie, Castillo, Bay, Beltran and Krod in return?

Vic Sage Feb 04 2011 12:43 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

metirish wrote: I expect a full report from our resident lawyer on this. i only use my powers for good.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2011 12:44 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Ashie62 wrote: It's gonna be one empty stadium this season The fans will come to the park, or stay home, based on what's happening on the field, not in a courtroom. Ashie62 wrote: what FA in his right mind would sign with the Mets if this suit is still out there a year I'm not so sure that will be a problem either. Ashie62 wrote: And the prick even knocked down Shea The Wilpons have achieved their dream of rebuilding Ebbets Field. They should take that as consolation as they pack up their things. And maybe they'll live long enough to see someone knock down Citi Field to rebuild Shea Stadium.

Valadius Feb 04 2011 12:44 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

It's all over, Jeffy!

Ashie62 Feb 04 2011 12:46 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Edgy DC wrote: To heck with the court of public opinion. Steinbrenner was an out-of-control autocrat who treated the rules and the law as an inconvenience and he has virgins dancing on his grave. Let's stick to the court of business law. Maybe the attendance at Mets games next season may help us see how the public feels about this? Like 1978?

Edgy MD Feb 04 2011 12:47 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I'm not doing well in betting, but I'm pretty reasonably confident that the team will outdraw the 1978 Mets.

metsmarathon Feb 04 2011 12:48 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: smg58 wrote: bmfc1 wrote: "Known or should have known" is going to be tough to prove. That's terrible language. If the former is true, there's no need to include the latter. By including the latter, it implies that they can't prove that the Wilpons knew. And "should have known" means what, exactly? A number of investment firms were suspicious about Madoff but didn't act on their suspicions. The Wilpons, as bmfc pointed out, are real-estate specialists. And besides... what does "should have known" mean? Had opportunity to know? Had ample circumstantial proof if they'd looked? That they should have been educated better on how their meat was made, or that they presumably were? If I direct someone to order from a menu I either (A) know is poisoned ahead of time or (B) find out is poisoned prior to meal service/as the meal is being served, and I say nothing, then I'm criminally liable-- and liable, as well, in a civil suit-- for that person's illness/death, yes? But if I've eaten there before, had good experiences (despite never having been in the kitchen/asking exactly what I'm having), and don't know ahead of time, or indeed, until a coroner's report tells me so, then how the hell can I be liable? I'm not a chef, or a restaurant professional... I'm a (semi-)informed customer making a recommendation. but what if the day before you'd seen an ambulance out front of the restaurant, lights all a-flashing..?

Ashie62 Feb 04 2011 12:50 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

The Wilpons are reminding me of the money lender Martin Short played in "Damages" this season.

metsmarathon Feb 04 2011 12:52 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

on twitter, buster olney wrote: The Mets' best defense in Madoff suit:We signed Oliver Perez and Luis Castillo to $60m deals-and WE were supposed to sniff out Ponzi scheme?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 04 2011 02:41 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

C'mon Buster, the Eddie Kranepool Society was writing that joke two years ago. (No offense to the EKS). Really, fascinating look inside. Poor Jeff grew up buddies with the Madoff kids, including the one who killed himself recently.

Valadius Feb 04 2011 02:53 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

AP wrote: The lawsuit said Sterling's Madoff accounts produced positive returns during the Black Monday stock market crash of 1987, the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the recession and housing crisis of 2008. Red flags anyone?

Edgy MD Feb 04 2011 02:58 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

In hindsight, sure. "My money was in the hands of a lifelong friend and associate, and he told me the funds were diversified enough to withstand volatile markets. I trusted him." You may not buy that, but it seems defensible.

duan Feb 04 2011 04:38 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I totally buy that. I tell you why - volatility is the speculators friend - if you get it right. Easy example I can give you AIB shares in ireland in 2007 were at something like €24 now, this was a blue chip bank, second biggest/biggest company in ireland. Banking crash etc happened price collapsed to round about €0.20 THEN the next thing was that at the moment where the state guaranteed the banks and a few other bits happened the bank price rose to over €3. then as things got bad again the price collapsed again and effectively the shares are now worthless. Now, I know people who sold @ €24, bought @ €0.20 and sold again €3 they made *a lot* of money, yet if you said to anyone that you'd been investing in bank shares over last 5 years they'd assume you lost your shirt.

Edgy MD Feb 04 2011 05:47 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I'm investing my money with Duan's friend. I suspect the 'Pons, guilty or not, can get plenty far arguing that, if the SEC and other regulators, missed Madoff's act, the "knew or should have known" argument is hard to sustain. But again, I can't see all the angles.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 04 2011 06:13 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

duan wrote: I totally buy that. I tell you why - volatility is the speculators friend - if you get it right. Easy example I can give you AIB shares in ireland in 2007 were at something like €24 now, this was a blue chip bank, second biggest/biggest company in ireland. Banking crash etc happened price collapsed to round about €0.20 THEN the next thing was that at the moment where the state guaranteed the banks and a few other bits happened the bank price rose to over €3. then as things got bad again the price collapsed again and effectively the shares are now worthless. Now, I know people who sold @ €24, bought @ €0.20 and sold again €3 they made *a lot* of money, yet if you said to anyone that you'd been investing in bank shares over last 5 years they'd assume you lost your shirt. I don't see the analogy. The AIB shares weren't any kind of a hedge against volatility. They were real shares, volatile in their own right, and the only AIB investors who profited were those that were either lucky or smart enough to sell for more than they paid. There's no hedge there. You got it right when you wrote that it was a speculative stock. All AIB investors could not have profited because as soon as everyone tries to sell at the top, the price of the AIB shares drops. Though the stock peaked at €24, very few investors could get that amount for their shares if everyone tried to sell at €24 simultaneously. The Madoff fund was a Ponzi scheme where Madoff kept the capital and only pretended to invest the money, and where apparently (and allegedly) Sterling/Wilpon/Katz always seemed to "profit". Besides, investments that are designed to hedge against risks are conservative investments by nature: they sacrifice the chances of larger profits (and larger losses) for safety. The idea that Madoff was running a wildly profitable fund that also hedged against risk is oxymoronic.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 04 2011 08:21 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

More on the Madoff mess from the NYT: Wilpon’s Ownership of Mets Is Threatened Fred Wilpon’s ability to hold onto the Mets was cast into more doubt Friday when a lawsuit filed by the trustee in the Bernard L. Madoff fraud case was unsealed and revealed in vivid detail the depth of Madoff’s involvement in nearly every aspect of Wilpon’s empire, particularly his team. The financial pressure on Wilpon will now continue to mount, and his preference to sell 20 to 25 percent of the Mets to alleviate the strain, a plan that he announced a week ago, may not turn out to be enough of a remedy. Some sports executives and analysts said Friday that they believed Wilpon would most likely have to sell the team in the face of demands by the trustee, Irving H. Picard, to turn over $300 million in what Picard termed “fictitious profits” and perhaps hundreds of millions more for ignoring warnings that Madoff might have been operating a fraud. Wilpon has talked about the team as a family legacy and how he wants to turn it over to his son, Jeff, the chief operating officer. But whether he can still do so is open to question. “It looks like a very messy situation for Fred,” said Fay Vincent, a former commissioner of baseball who is friendly with Wilpon and Picard. “I know Picard and he’s a serious and solid lawyer, and what he’s doing has to be taken seriously.” Vincent said he did not want it to appear as if he were advising Wilpon on what to do, but added, “It’s important for anyone in a situation this treacherous to consider whether he can run his main business and defend himself simultaneously.” Michael Ozanian, the executive editor of Forbes, which valued the Mets at $858 million last year, said, “I think the Mets have been a franchise that for many years relied on borrowed money.” He said Wilpon would have to sell the team and the SNY television network “to get out of this mess.” Robert Boland, who teaches sports law at New York University’s Tisch Center, said that Wilpon, his partners and their families looked more vulnerable than ever and were unlikely to find relief from any substantial improvement in the financial performances of the team or Citi Field. “This may drag on,” Boland said, adding that he thought Wilpon might be better off battling Picard’s suit in court rather than settling. But the problem, he said, is whether “ the Wilpons have the resources to fight for a long time.” The team, the stadium and the SNY network have considerable debt — about $1.5 billion in all by some estimates — and two analysts said there might not be enough money available to Wilpon to settle with Picard and make bond payments, including $52 million a year for the stadium. The Mets also have hit their limit on borrowing from Major League Baseball’s credit line. How baseball views the Mets’ situation is unclear. Wilpon and Saul Katz, his brother-in-law and business partner, met with Commissioner Bud Selig this week. Selig and Wilpon are close friends, which might lead Selig to work diligently to help him keep the team. But their meeting occurred before Picard’s complaint was unsealed and the full extent of Madoff’s links to the team was shown. They went far beyond his season tickets at Shea Stadium. According to the lawsuit, Wilpon, Katz and their partners withdrew $94 million over the years from the team’s Madoff accounts. Picard also said Wilpon and Katz used their Madoff money to convince lenders of their creditworthiness when they were seeking to refinance the loans that enabled them to buy out Nelson Doubleday in 2002. The suit says that Wilpon and Katz even offered Madoff a chance to take a partial interest in the franchise around that time, the only known instance when Madoff declined an opportunity to invest alongside them. Madoff was the team’s personal banker, making sure that the Mets could withdraw cash, when needed, to fund the team’s day-to-day operations. That ever-ready honey pot helped the team’s owners meet payroll, pay for stadium operations and provide for deferred compensation to players, according to the lawsuit. The Mets owners also seemed to benefit from the consistently high and steady nature of the returns they appeared to be enjoying from Madoff when they refinanced the team’s lending arrangements in 2004. It was then that the owners represented to banks that Madoff provided “a safe alternative to unattractive money market yields” and that over the previous 25-year period, Madoff’s average returns were 18 percent, with a standard deviation of 4 percent. “The direct connection between the Madoff Ponzi scheme and the Mets’ revenues is something that was unexpected,” said Marc Ganis, a sports-industry consultant. “Selig could demand that the team be sold because of the team’s connection to one of the biggest Ponzi schemes ever.” Baseball last faced a financial crisis with one of its teams when Thomas Hicks, then the owner of the Texas Rangers, defaulted on $525 million in loans, which pushed the team into bankruptcy. Last summer, the Rangers were sold in a court auction for $593 million to a group led by the Hall of Fame pitcher Nolan Ryan and Chuck Greenberg. “What we learned from the Rangers involves an owner who owed a great deal of money and could not pay,” Ganis said. “If Picard is successful, then it’s likely to be the same with Wilpon.” Vince Gennaro, a financial consultant to several major league teams, said Wilpon’s ability to hold onto the Mets “depends on the resources he has from other entities and the liquidity he has.” What was revealed Friday, he said, “makes that challenge tougher.”

Kong76 Feb 04 2011 08:38 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Great week for a poster once known as SellTheTeam NOW!!!

The Second Spitter Feb 04 2011 11:46 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: smg58 wrote: bmfc1 wrote: "Known or should have known" is going to be tough to prove. That's terrible language. If the former is true, there's no need to include the latter. By including the latter, it implies that they can't prove that the Wilpons knew. And "should have known" means what, exactly? A number of investment firms were suspicious about Madoff but didn't act on their suspicions. The Wilpons, as bmfc pointed out, are real-estate specialists. And besides... what does "should have known" mean? Had opportunity to know? Had ample circumstantial proof if they'd looked? That they should have been educated better on how their meat was made, or that they presumably were?n. The question will be whether Wilpon was "wilfully blind" to the scheme (or "contrived ignorance") The trustee's argument will be that a reasonable person in Wilpon's position (i.e. a magnate with a large cross-section of interests) would have identified the abnormalities of the scheme. Of course, the issue will be reduced to Wilpon's childhood friendship with Madoff and I'm sure they will go as far as possible to imply Wilpon was in cahoots with Madoff. The trustee will point to the fact that Wilpon used Madoff to facilitate the Mets finances.

The Second Spitter Feb 05 2011 05:43 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Erased

metirish Feb 05 2011 03:48 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Madoff could have been Mets part-owner February, 5, 2011 By Adam Rubin When Fred Wilpon and family bought out Nelson Doubleday's half of Mets ownership in 2002, Wilpon offered Bernard Madoff a chance to buy into the Mets. Madoff, who otherwise invested $12 million in alleged funny money with Sterling businesses, declined. Here's the exact passage in the lawsuit: The only time Sterling offered Madoff an opportunity to invest that he declined was in the Mets, when in 2002, Doubleday sold its 50% ownership of the Mets and Sterling offered Madoff partial ownership interests in the franchise.

The Second Spitter Feb 05 2011 09:48 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Picard is seeking $1B from Wilpon/Katz Make it so! The lawsuit unsealed Friday does not specify the exact amount sought from Fred and Jeff Wilpon, Saul Katz and Sterling companies beyond $300 million in allegedly fraudulent profits. However, the total amount sought because the family allegedly looked the other way turns out to be $1 billion, a plaintiff's lawyer told The New York Times. “What the trustee is looking for here is a payment in cash,” attorney David Sheehan, who leads trustee Irving Picard's team, told the newspaper. “So whether they utilize the Mets, SNY, Sterling properties or any other resource is of no moment to us. What we’re looking for is a billion dollars, and unless we settle for less than that, which we’re not inclined to do, where they get the money is of no moment to us.” Throwing out the astronomical sum likely in part is designed to compel the Wilpons to settle for a lesser figure. But that staggering potential liability if the case ends up at trial demonstrates just how dire things might become for the Wilpon family, and just how tenuous their hold on the Mets may become. Picard seeks the hundreds of millions of extra dollars -- even the principal the Wilpons invested with Bernard Madoff -- because he alleges the Wilpons knew, or should have known because of repeated warnings and other indicators, that Madoff was doing funny business.

Ashie62 Feb 05 2011 09:59 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Valadius wrote: AP wrote: The lawsuit said Sterling's Madoff accounts produced positive returns during the Black Monday stock market crash of 1987, the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the recession and housing crisis of 2008. Red flags anyone? Fortune were made by many during these crises. You can play them going up or down... Having said that, Madoff and Freddie are crooks.

duan Feb 06 2011 03:45 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

sorry my earlier post was in reference to Valadius' "Red Flags". all I was doing with giving the defense that the Wilpons are able to give. If you have 'belief' in your guy you can imagine he makes all the calls right. And the guys who say he's a shark are just jealous cause they don't do as well. I've NO idea where along the continuum the reality is - you'd have to have a lot more information then anyone bar the main protagonists has to actually no.

Edgy MD Feb 07 2011 06:42 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

So then, the best witnesses that could testify that the Wilpons were in on the scheme would be those few above them in the pyramid. Madoff's so far posturing to go down claiming that he alone was responsilbe for the fraud. But the Feds have lined up many more targets of presuction, any of whom could possibly geta plea bargain for testifying against the Wilpons. But if the Wilpons themselves aren't (yet) targets of prosecution, it looks going to be hard to establish in a civil suit that they were in the scam.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 07 2011 07:14 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I found this articleon Baseball Prospectus because it contained a UMDB link. The article's author, Neil deMause, anticipates that the Mets will have new ownership sooner rather than later, which seems plausible to me. I think the Wilpons are going to be stubborn about hanging in there, but they can only do that for so long.

The Second Spitter Feb 07 2011 08:11 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale) Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 07 2011 08:13 AM

Edgy DC wrote: So then, the best witnesses that could testify that the Wilpons were in on the scheme would be those few above them in the pyramid. Madoff's so far posturing to go down claiming that he alone was responsilbe for the fraud. But the Feds have lined up many more targets of presuction, any of whom could possibly geta plea bargain for testifying against the Wilpons. But if the Wilpons themselves aren't (yet) targets of prosecution, it looks going to be hard to establish in a civil suit that they were in the scam. Picard may succeed on the civil suit by demonstrating the arrangement was mutually beneficial or created "a cycle of dependency" as the lawsuit calls it, compelling Wilpon to turn a blind eye.. This would entail a different level of culpability than being complicit with Madoff. It's basically the difference between intent and being reckless.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 07 2011 08:12 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Presuction?

Edgy MD Feb 07 2011 08:22 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I've been wretchedly sick this weekend, and my typing reflects that. To be honest, my typing has been terrible for several weeks now, and I'm starting to worry --- frequently going back to re-read my posts and finding prominent typos, missiing words, or entire missing phrases. (Notice also how I write about the Wilpons being "in the scam," rather than "in on the scam.")

Frayed Knot Feb 07 2011 08:26 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Presuction? Well you don't just want to go into lipo surgery unprepared do you?

batmagadanleadoff Feb 07 2011 09:18 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

The trustee already has testimony and documented evidence that some of the younger Katz's and Stamos were deeply suspicious of Madoff. Under the NY Partnership Law, that knowledge can be imputed to the other partners -- e.g., Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz. I've been working my way through the massive complaint a little at a time, and I'm beginning to believe that Sterling had to have known that Madoff was running a scam.

G-Fafif Feb 07 2011 10:19 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Newsday's Jim Baumbach tracks down Nelson Doubleday. No, he's not enjoying this. No, he doesn't want back in. The Wilpons are looking for someone with deep pockets to partner with them in owning the Mets. So, Nelson Doubleday, what do you think? "No," he said by phone Monday, "I've had my turn at that game." It's been almost nine years since Fred Wilpon bought out Doubleday's 50-percent share of the Mets, ending a partnership that began in 1980. Although their 22-year marriage was usually described as anything but amicable, Doubleday has found no joy in reading all these negative stories about the Wilpons - and the Mets - in the newspapers. "I hate to see the franchise get kicked around like that," he said. "And I'm sorry to see them getting kicked around." Speaking from his home on the East Coast of Florida, Doubleday, 77, stressed that he doesn't know all that much about the Wilpons' financial state or the $1-billion figure that the special trustee in the Bernard Madoff fraud case is seeking from them in a lawsuit. "All I know is what I read," he said. He's certainly not happy about what he's been reading, not to mention the negative effect this news has been having on the Mets' reputation. He said he had just spoken with former Mets GM Frank Cashen the other day about everything that's been going on. "Yeah, I hate to see this trouble for them," he said of the Mets, "because I enjoyed my time with them." A part of the Mets' ownership group since 1980, Doubleday spent his final 16 years with the Mets as an equal partner with Fred Wilpon until he was bought out in 2002. Asked about their well-documented differences, Doubleday said it's best to describe their relationship as "good business partners." "We got along in that and that was fine," Doubleday said. "I may not have done things the way they do it and they might not have done things the way I did them, but we got along." Given the staggering number of accounts with Madoff that had ties to the Mets, it was noteworthy that Doubleday was spared. He said he used different "investment counseling" than the Wilpons did. Doubleday said he spends a lot of his time these days at his Florida home, which is a few towns south of the Mets' spring training complex in Port St. Lucie. Summers are spent on Nantucket, he added, with a few visits to Long Island every now and then. Doubleday hasn't been to a game at Citi Field yet, but he expressed interest in visiting the Mets' new home someday. "If I can," he said, "I will." But as for investing any more time or money into the team, those days are long gone. "I see them every now and again. Our paths cross," Doubleday said of the Wilpons. "But not as far as baseball is concerned. It's none of my business."

metirish Feb 08 2011 03:51 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Make of this what you will http://www.metsfansforever.com/mets_fan ... -mets.html

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 08 2011 04:00 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

metirish wrote: Make of this what you will http://www.metsfansforever.com/mets_fan ... -mets.html That's the blog that asked to interview me one time then sent me a IM calling me a bitch. I'm sure the info is ironclad.

metirish Feb 08 2011 04:08 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Make of this what you will http://www.metsfansforever.com/mets_fan ... -mets.html That's the blog that asked to interview me one time then sent me a IM calling me a bitch. I'm sure the info is ironclad. Sure isn't that a fine load of bitches he has buying the Mets in the morning?

Willets Point Feb 08 2011 04:14 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

metirish wrote: Make of this what you will http://www.metsfansforever.com/mets_fan ... -mets.html Dolan AND Cuban? Shit!

metirish Feb 08 2011 04:17 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Willets Point wrote: Make of this what you will http://www.metsfansforever.com/mets_fan ... -mets.html Dolan AND Cuban? Shit! MLK will keep the peace. Sorry if I offened anyone with the MLK remark.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 08 2011 05:27 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: That's the blog that asked to interview me one time then sent me a IM calling me a bitch. I'm sure the info is ironclad. Care to tell us a little more about this?

Frayed Knot Feb 08 2011 05:37 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

"An investor group led by Martin Luther King III and including Ed Kranepool, Charles Dolan, Mark Cuban, Peter Kalikow and others are making an offer, as early as tomorrow, to purchase 100% of the Mets and SNY TV. " This strikes me as an awfully quick time-frame to get such a diverse group and what must be a huge wad of money all together. There's also that minor inconvenience of the current owners not wanting to sell.

Edgy MD Feb 08 2011 06:29 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Still, to play with it for a bit, who would you frame as senior partner in that gambit? Unless a ton of parties are lining up to lend MLK III money, it has to be Cuban over Dolan, right?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 08 2011 07:19 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Benjamin Grimm wrote: That's the blog that asked to interview me one time then sent me a IM calling me a bitch. I'm sure the info is ironclad. Care to tell us a little more about this? There isn't much more than that! Looking back now, he wrote to me initially with a lot of questions about how to get a book published. He wanted to know if should write his book about the top 75 Mets then get a publisher or the other way around. Then a few months later: Hi this is XXXXX form MetsFansForever.com I was wondering if you could put my blog on your links bar. That would be great. Thanks! sure thing will, woking on it now. JCL Also I was wondering if I can interview you by e-mail about your site mbtn.net. Thanks again, XXX Sure, I'd be happy to, anytime. JCL Thanks, I'll send you the questions in the next couple of days. Two months later... Hey JCL, Sorry I haven't sent you the questions. I've had family problems so the Mets took a back seat. I promise I'll get them to you by Sunday night. Thanks, XXX XXXX Then, 1 week later, via gmail IM: XXXX: hey answer me bitch JCL: Sorry, did I miss a message? the end

Frayed Knot Feb 08 2011 07:30 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Edgy DC wrote: Still, to play with it for a bit, who would you frame as senior partner in that gambit? Unless a ton of parties are lining up to lend MLK III money, it has to be Cuban over Dolan, right? Cuban & Dolan can cut cards to determine which one Selig wants in less.

Edgy MD Feb 08 2011 08:55 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

So, I take it that none of the major media outlets have followed up on this scoop? Somebody needs to turn in his blogger's license.

Valadius Feb 08 2011 09:01 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I'm sorry, it sounds way too much like something someone calling Francesa would cook up in their head. Cuban would never, ever be a minority partner in anything. And he would never get in bed with the Dolans. I call bullshit.

G-Fafif Feb 08 2011 09:34 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: That's the blog that asked to interview me one time then sent me a IM calling me a bitch. I'm sure the info is ironclad. Care to tell us a little more about this? There isn't much more than that! Looking back now, he wrote to me initially with a lot of questions about how to get a book published. He wanted to know if should write his book about the top 75 Mets then get a publisher or the other way around. Then a few months later: Hi this is XXXXX form MetsFansForever.com I was wondering if you could put my blog on your links bar. That would be great. Thanks! sure thing will, woking on it now. JCL Also I was wondering if I can interview you by e-mail about your site mbtn.net. Thanks again, XXX Sure, I'd be happy to, anytime. JCL Thanks, I'll send you the questions in the next couple of days. Two months later... Hey JCL, Sorry I haven't sent you the questions. I've had family problems so the Mets took a back seat. I promise I'll get them to you by Sunday night. Thanks, XXX XXXX Then, 1 week later, via gmail IM: XXXX: hey answer me bitch JCL: Sorry, did I miss a message? the end I'm a little disappointed that "answer me bitch" isn't your signature.

Edgy MD Feb 08 2011 09:47 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Valadius wrote: I'm sorry, it sounds way too much like something someone calling Francesa would cook up in their head. Cuban would never, ever be a minority partner in anything. And he would never get in bed with the Dolans. I call bullshit. Well, get in line. On the other hand, like Marshall Crenshaw said, something's gonna happen.

duan Feb 09 2011 03:05 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: That's the blog that asked to interview me one time then sent me a IM calling me a bitch. I'm sure the info is ironclad. Care to tell us a little more about this? There isn't much more than that! Looking back now, he wrote to me initially with a lot of questions about how to get a book published. He wanted to know if should write his book about the top 75 Mets then get a publisher or the other way around. Then a few months later: Hi this is XXXXX form MetsFansForever.com I was wondering if you could put my blog on your links bar. That would be great. Thanks! sure thing will, woking on it now. JCL Also I was wondering if I can interview you by e-mail about your site mbtn.net. Thanks again, XXX Sure, I'd be happy to, anytime. JCL Thanks, I'll send you the questions in the next couple of days. Two months later... Hey JCL, Sorry I haven't sent you the questions. I've had family problems so the Mets took a back seat. I promise I'll get them to you by Sunday night. Thanks, XXX XXXX Then, 1 week later, via gmail IM: XXXX: hey answer me bitch JCL: Sorry, did I miss a message? the end Me thinks that the proximity of your little green gmail chat thing to that of the 'personal problems' would be the answer.

HahnSolo Feb 09 2011 07:07 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Just to throw some more fat on the fire...does anyone think that maybe Saul knew something about Madoff, but that Fred and Jeff were left in the dark? Or is that too ridiculous to ponder?

Edgy MD Feb 09 2011 07:11 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

No, I think that possibility has been implied here, although not necessarily endorsed.

Ceetar Feb 09 2011 07:13 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

HahnSolo wrote: Just to throw some more fat on the fire...does anyone think that maybe Saul knew something about Madoff, but that Fred and Jeff were left in the dark? Or is that too ridiculous to ponder? I don't think it's wrong to suspect different guys had different levels of skepticism, but they were both after the same thing so if he was seriously concerned he probably would've spoken up. I think Katz is just a little more shrouded in mystery so we like to assign him all sorts of nefarious deeds. hey, i wonder if he's Mr. Met?

Benjamin Grimm Feb 09 2011 07:36 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I'm beginning to conflate Saul Katz and Dick Cheney.

MFS62 Feb 09 2011 07:46 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Edgy DC wrote: Valadius wrote: I'm sorry, it sounds way too much like something someone calling Francesa would cook up in their head. Cuban would never, ever be a minority partner in anything. And he would never get in bed with the Dolans. I call bullshit. Well, get in line. On the other hand, like Marshall Crenshaw said, something's gonna happen. I hope that Dolan isn't part of that deal. I don't want to see Isiah Thomas as GM of the Mets. Later

Edgy MD Feb 09 2011 07:48 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

The Times is doing a better job here than previous I think, focusing on the less salacious details about the other vulnerabliity the Wilpons/Katzes face --- the overextension they've found themselves in, trying to keep flush after the Madoff revenue streams dried up. They really built at the wrong time, didn't they? I breathed a sigh of relief when I found out they weren't wiped out by Madoff, but it took a while to realize how dependent they were on the phony revenue stream that he gave them to continue --- that in their debt-intensive world, loss of future revenues isn't so meaningfully different than loss of actual assets. I don't think they're going to end up at the curb like Lenny Dykstra, but goodness, the thought crossed my mind. Banks Could Have Key Role in Mets Suit By PETER LATTMAN and RICHARD SANDOMIR Published: February 8, 2011 Bernard L. Madoff’s arrest on Dec. 11, 2008, shook the pillars of Fred Wilpon’s world. Gone was $500 million that he and his family thought was in their Madoff investment accounts. On top of that, Wilpon’s remaining empire had at least a half-billion dollars in debt with no easy way to deal with it, according to court papers filed last week. There was, the records say, “very little actual cash on hand.” Sterling Equities, the family company that owns the Mets, was scrambling to survive. In the end, eight banks, including Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase, came to Wilpon’s rescue. Together, they engineered what the court papers say was a “complete and comprehensive” restructuring of 40 loans totaling $500 million owed by Sterling’s partners and other parts of the empire. In the refinancing, the family trusts of Wilpon and his brother-in-law, Saul Katz, added $100 million in debt. The overhaul worked, keeping Sterling afloat when global finances were in doubt and easy credit was nonexistent. And there is little doubt Wilpon’s public record as a careful businessman and respected team owner explained some of the willingness of the banks. “Here you have the Wilpons with a reputation for being smart, good businesspeople,” said Shai Waisman, a bankruptcy lawyer at Weil, Gotshal & Manges in Manhattan, “and if you’re a bank, you probably think they’ll be able to weather this storm and turn things around.” A lawsuit brought against Wilpon and his associates at Sterling by the trustee for Madoff’s victims — one that accuses them of having willfully ignored warnings that Madoff might have been a fraud — has offered Wilpon’s banks an unflattering portrait of the man they helped rescue. The trustee, Irving H. Picard, has charged that Wilpon and others at Sterling, despite having reason to be suspicious of Madoff, nonetheless used their Madoff accounts as collateral for bank loans, and that they used loans from banks to open up additional accounts with Madoff, confident that the steady money earned with Madoff would outperform the interest rates on their loans. A lawyer for Picard, David Sheehan, has said that when Wilpon needed cash but wanted to avoid formally going to the banks for more loans, he simply had Madoff lend him millions, all under the guise of ostensible investments in Wilpon’s real estate holdings and venture capital deals. Picard is seeking $1 billion from Wilpon and his partners to compensate those who he argues were true victims of Madoff. Wilpon’s banks have chosen not to answer questions about the lawsuit or its portrayal of Wilpon and his partners. And Wilpon’s lawyers contend that Picard “did not uncover one shred of evidence” to disprove Wilpon and his partners were anything more than victims who trusted Madoff. But those banks, which over the last two years have saved and supported Wilpon, could be critical players as Wilpon contends with Picard’s lawsuit and the prospect of needed hundreds of millions in cash to settle the case, according to lawyers and other banking experts. Those lawyers and experts suggested Wilpon’s banks could contemplate a number of options: they could call in their loans, perhaps forcing Wilpon to sell all or parts of his empire; or they could choose to assist him, helping him find a way to survive even a giant settlement. “Generally speaking, banks don’t act rashly in these sorts of situations,” said Anthony W. Clark, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom who specializes in corporate restructurings. “They’re usually cautious and will watch to see what happens. They don’t want to precipitate the thing they are most concerned about, which is diminishing the value of the assets that serve as their collateral.” Wilpon’s empire is heavy with debt. With his real estate dealings, that is hardly uncommon. He and his partners routinely put up a small percentage of equity in their real estate funds and borrowed two to three times that when making acquisitions. There is also serious debt on his team and the new stadium he helped build in Queens. Indeed, with the Madoff case looming, Wilpon’s company’s need for cash was such that in taking out a $450 million loan on the SNY network last year, he and his partners, Time Warner Cable and Comcast, got about $240 million in cash, two-thirds of which went to Sterling. And in a $375 million financing of the Mets last year, Wilpon reportedly received $75 million in cash. It is not clear whether that cash was spent or salted away. And Wilpon has, within the last two weeks, put up for sale 25 percent of the team — a previously unthinkable option — to raise more money. As the banks look at the loans Wilpon and his partners have, their options depend on the specific language in the agreements, said Sandra E. Mayerson, a lawyer at Squire Sanders who specializes in restructuring and insolvency. The banks may well have forced Wilpon, in these most recent refinancings, to add more collateral or restricted the investments he could make. “I’m sure the Wilpon side will fight tooth and nail to keep their businesses viable,” Mayerson said. “It doesn’t help anyone, including Picard, to have those businesses fail.” Picard’s lawsuit described a web of dubious banking that fueled growth at Sterling. When Wilpon needed a loan to buy out his cable television deal to start SNY, he pledged at least one Madoff account as collateral. The Sterling partners opened 65 accounts solely to invest with Madoff and then often to use as collateral to borrow still more to invest in the accounts. Bank of America “was influenced by both the large purported balances” and “consistent returns” generated by the Sterling’s Madoff accounts when Sterling sought a $75 million loan. According to Picard, the loan supplied Sterling with half of what it needed to secure its stake in its latest real estate fund, which entitled it to 90 percent of the fund’s management fees. According to Picard, Wilpon and his partners used the Madoff accounts to prove their net worth and creditworthiness to raise capital “that might not have been otherwise available.” Some experts say that Picard’s accusations have not been proved in court. “Don’t forget that it’s only a legal claim that the trustee has against them,” said Deirdre Martini, a managing director at Wells Fargo Capital Finance. Still, Bradley Simon, a former federal prosecutor who is a defense lawyer at Simon & Partners, said that banks should be “nervous, if not terrified” if Picard successfully forces Wilpon and Katz to sell the Mets, SNY and real estate to come up with $1 billion. He added that banks should be combing their loan refinancing documents for misleading statements related to Madoff. “I don’t think they understood what Picard knows,” Simon said.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 09 2011 07:53 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I really think that Bud Selig is going to get to work to try to coordinate a full sale of the team. The only question in my mind is when this will happen (if it hasn't already started, which I sort of doubt) and how successful it will be, if the Wilpons decide to be stubborn about hanging in there, as they very well might.

MFS62 Feb 09 2011 07:55 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

The first hint of a sale will be when they re-name the stadium "Debits Field". Later

Gwreck Feb 09 2011 08:39 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

The name on the stadium is actually the least likely thing to change. With all of their cash flow problems, they are not going to turn away the millions of dollars they get each year for the naming rights.

MFS62 Feb 09 2011 09:12 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Just curious. With Ed Kranepool's name being mentioned in stories about potential new ownership offers, has the CPF been experiencing an increase in hits to the site? Any way to check that out? Later

SteveJRogers Feb 09 2011 12:49 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I doubt it would. Unless there are more people who hear the name Kranepool and want to put a C instead of the K.

Lefty Specialist Feb 09 2011 01:19 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Edgy DC wrote: Valadius wrote: I'm sorry, it sounds way too much like something someone calling Francesa would cook up in their head. Cuban would never, ever be a minority partner in anything. And he would never get in bed with the Dolans. I call bullshit. Well, get in line. On the other hand, like Marshall Crenshaw said, something's gonna happen. The lyrics to Some Day, Some Way are strangely appropriate. I can't stand to see you sad I can't bear to hear you cry If you can't tell me what you need All I can do is wonder why Someday, someway aww Someday, someway, yeah now Someday, someway Maybe I'll understand you After all you've done for me All I really want to do Is take the love you brought my way And give it all right back to you Someday, someway Someday, someway yeah yeah Someday, someway Maybe you'll understand me You've taken everything from me I've taken everything from you I'll love you for my whole life through Now after all you've done for me All I really want to do Is take the love you brought my way And give it all right back to you Someday, someway aww Someday, someway, yeah now Someday, someway Maybe you'll understand me You've taken everything from me I've taken everything from you I'll love you for my whole life through I can't stand to see you sad I can't bear to hear you cry If you can't tell me what you need All I can do is wonder why Someday, someway aww Someday, someway, yeah yeah Someday, someway Maybe I'll understand you Someday, someway aww Someday, someway, yeah yeah Someday, someway Maybe you'll understand me Someday, someway oh! Someday, someway, yeah now Someday, someway Maybe I'll understand you

metsmarathon Feb 09 2011 01:42 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

MFS62 wrote: Just curious. With Ed Kranepool's name being mentioned in stories about potential new ownership offers, has the CPF been experiencing an increase in hits to the site? Any way to check that out? Later googling kranepool, our beloved forum shows up on page 4. binging kranepool, an archive of our beloved forum shows up no sooner than page 22. member sites show up sooner, but if we're seeing an increase in traffic, it's taking the scenic route, and possibly getting lost along the way. but we're happy to have ya! welcome abordick!

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 09 2011 01:49 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

"You're My Favorite Waste of Time" seems more apropos.

Frayed Knot Feb 09 2011 01:57 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

"An investor group led by Martin Luther King III and including Ed Kranepool, Charles Dolan, Mark Cuban, Peter Kalikow and others are making an offer, as early as tomorrow, to purchase 100% of the Mets and SNY TV. " OK, it's tomorrow. I guess this announcement is staying rather low key.

Ashie62 Feb 09 2011 01:59 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Edgy DC wrote: No, I think that possibility has been implied here, although not necessarily endorsed. It has Ashies endorsement lol. Katz as bagman and buffer.

Ashie62 Feb 09 2011 02:02 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Ashie62 wrote: Edgy DC wrote: No, I think that possibility has been implied here, although not necessarily endorsed. It has Ashies endorsement lol. Katz as bagman and buffer. [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576132201926195130.html

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 09 2011 02:07 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I hear he shot a man in Reno, just to say he shot a man in Reno.

metirish Feb 10 2011 03:31 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Mario Cuomo will mediate between Picard and Wilpon/ possy. I guess George Mitchell is busy.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 15 2011 12:59 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

New York Times wrote: (Donald) Trump said Tuesday that Fred Wilpon, the Mets’ principal owner, had called him to arrange a face-to-face meeting to discuss whether he is interested in buying at least a part of the club. The meeting has not yet been held, said Trump, who made it clear that he would be interested only in buying a majority stake in the team. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/sport ... ilpon.html

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 15 2011 01:08 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

F Donald Trump. That is all.

Willets Point Feb 15 2011 01:10 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

He'll have to give up ownership when he runs for President.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 15 2011 01:13 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I'm not inclined to believe much of what Donald Trump says. The Wilpons called him? I'm... dubious.

G-Fafif Feb 15 2011 01:14 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

How are the Generals doing these days?

Valadius Feb 15 2011 01:48 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Whatever happened to the "answer me bitch" guy's flight of fancy?

Benjamin Grimm Feb 15 2011 02:10 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

It's hard to believe that anyone looking for a silent partner would reach out to Donald Trump.

metirish Feb 15 2011 02:13 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Please no , not him of all the wankers being mentioned. Celebrity Apprentice from Citi Field , starring former Mets......Strawberry has done it before........not sire if Trump has that kind of money anyway.....he'll say he will but that's another story.

Frayed Knot Feb 15 2011 02:29 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

G-Fafif wrote: How are the Generals doing these days? One of the '30 in 30' films that ESPN has been running over the past year or so dealt with the quick rise and fall of the USFL. Virtually everyone interviewed blamed Trump for fucking it up. Not just the NJ Generals but the entire league.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 15 2011 02:36 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Sounds like the kinda guy we're looking for! Me, I'm still hoping for Robert Abplanalp.

seawolf17 Feb 15 2011 02:38 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Honestly, I think Trump would be a hoot.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 15 2011 02:48 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale) Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 15 2011 02:57 PM

I prefer my ham in Cuban form.

Edgy MD Feb 15 2011 02:50 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Sheesh, I'd sooner have a Seinfeld group. I'd sooner a Newman group.

Willets Point Feb 15 2011 02:52 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

seawolf17 wrote: Honestly, I think Trump would be a hoot. Entertaining, yes, but I'd prefer my entertainment on the field in the form of a competitive baseball team rather than comedy in the owner's office.

Ashie62 Feb 15 2011 05:59 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

You want silent? How about Citigroup?

Edgy MD Feb 15 2011 08:08 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

In a prison interview with The New York Times, Bernie Madoff cleared the Wilpons, even as he suggested several banks must of had an idea what he was up to.

metirish Feb 15 2011 08:14 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Edgy DC wrote: In a prison interview with The New York Times, Bernie Madoff cleared the Wilpons, even as he suggested several banks must of had an idea what he was up to. and if you can't trust and believe Bernie then you can you trust?

Edgy MD Feb 15 2011 08:20 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I don't think it really matters. A prison witness is an asset even if his character is not. Sometimes a biased witness is better to have, because you don't have to worry about his character and can instead measure his credibility purely against his interests. (Which is why Congressmembers shoudn't have been so abusive toward Brian MacNamee and dismissive of his testimony.)

metirish Feb 15 2011 08:36 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

True and the article says Madoff has been helping Picard.

The Second Spitter Feb 15 2011 10:42 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

There's a fair bit of doublespeak in that article.

Gwreck Feb 15 2011 11:13 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I realize the tangential nature of this, but how about that conflict of interest in the very reporting of the story? I realize they disclose it (12 paragraphs in) but you've got the reporter conducting this interview for her book, coming out this spring (publicizing it by the very presence of the disclosure), which is coming out on Times Books (an imprint of the paper).

The Second Spitter Feb 16 2011 01:32 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Which explains why it is so irrelevant to Wilpon's lawsuit.

Edgy MD Feb 16 2011 05:45 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I think it's useful information. Heck, the Times has been running stories spoon-fed them by Picard the last few weeks.

Frayed Knot Feb 16 2011 09:49 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

“We’re not selling controlling interest of the team,” [Jeff] Wilpon said Wednesday at the Mets’ spring training complex. “It’s not on the table. ... There’s a lot of interest and good interest from real people that you haven’t read about,” Wilpon said. “Most of what you’ve read about is not real.”

Ceetar Feb 16 2011 09:52 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Frayed Knot wrote: “We’re not selling controlling interest of the team,” [Jeff] Wilpon said Wednesday at the Mets’ spring training complex. “It’s not on the table. ... There’s a lot of interest and good interest from real people that you haven’t read about,” Wilpon said. “Most of what you’ve read about is not real.” How many of the people in the interview scrum transcribed this and then went out and started writing a story on Trump or someone other big name 'linked' to the Mets? Sometimes I think these guys don't read their own writing.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 16 2011 10:05 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I think they likely read their own writing, consider the sources of the quotes, and then proceed apace with the Trumping. It stands to reason, sorta.

Valadius Feb 16 2011 10:40 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Frayed Knot wrote: “We’re not selling controlling interest of the team,” [Jeff] Wilpon said Wednesday at the Mets’ spring training complex. “It’s not on the table. ... There’s a lot of interest and good interest from real people that you haven’t read about,” Wilpon said. “Most of what you’ve read about is not real.” Jeff Wilpon=Gamal Mubarak Desperate, undeserving sons who want their fathers to hold on to a crumbling empire so they can inherit it themselves, and are willing to do whatever it takes behind the scenes to keep the father from learning the true scale of the opposition to their continued rule.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 16 2011 10:50 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Yeah, that's real appropriate.

Valadius Feb 16 2011 03:57 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Jim Cramer on Hardball: "If anybody knew about what Madoff was doing, it was the Wilpons." Cramer thinks it's suspicious that Madoff went out of his way to exonerate the Wilpons while trying to bring down other institutions in the Times.

Ashie62 Feb 16 2011 04:01 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

That ^^^

Gwreck Feb 16 2011 06:12 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

When I think credibility and meaningful opinions that I value, I think Jim Cramer.

The Second Spitter Feb 16 2011 06:31 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Jim Cramer on Hardball: "If anybody knew about what Madoff was doing, it was the Wilpons." Cramer thinks it's suspicious that Madoff went out of his way to exonerate the Wilpons while trying to bring down other institutions in the Times. This is what i was alluding to when I said the article was filled with doublespeak. Madoff has the audacity to claim his banks and financial advisors, most of whom were located in other country, should have been alerted to the scheme. He is trying to place on them, the same level of culpability that Picard is trying to place on Wilpon. The subtle irony here is that Madoff chose foreign, obscure financial institutions for the purpose of insulating his scheme from close scrutiny.

metirish Feb 16 2011 07:33 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

You can buy the Mets ... February, 16, 2011 By Adam Rubin Buyer beware on the legitimacy, but this does appear in The New York Times: Richard Sandomir interviews the leaders of BuyTheMets.com, which is trying to solicit pledges via the internet to raise money to purchase the team and the Wilpons' share of SNY. Web site founder Bill Heyn acknowledges it's a "long shot ... but we think it will work." Shares would cost $999. Of course, as Sandomir notes: "One obstacle in trying to turn the Mets into a New York version of the community-owned Green Bay Packers is a Major League Baseball rule that the lead investor own at least 10 percent of the team and control 90 percent of the voting shares." http://buythemets.com/

Edgy MD Feb 16 2011 07:42 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Jim Cramer on Hardball: "If anybody knew about what Madoff was doing, it was the Wilpons." Cramer thinks it's suspicious that Madoff went out of his way to exonerate the Wilpons while trying to bring down other institutions in the Times. I think it's suspicious that you pay attention to Jim F. Cramer.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 17 2011 02:22 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Investors are betting against the Mets. excerpts: Banks that provided roughly $400 million in loans to the New York Mets are starting to unload some of that debt at a discount, a sign that creditors are getting nervous about the team's finances, the New York Post reported Thursday. Potential buyers are bidding around 90 cents on the dollar for the debt, sources said. At least one creditor has bought a debt slice at a discount with the approval of Major League Baseball, which must sign off on any buyer of the team's loans, said one source. "This tells me the original lenders are scared," a source close to the situation said. One source said MLB is holding up trading in the loans because of concerns that vulture investors will snap up the debt and force the team into bankruptcy — just like they did last year to the Texas Rangers. Meanwhile, the Citi Field bonds, whose debt is already rated "junk," are starting to trade at prices that also indicate trouble — in the mid-60-cent range, said one source. The Wilpon-family-owned Queens Ballpark Corp. pays the interest on the bonds to the New York City Industrial Development Agency, which owns Citi Field. If the Wilpon family fails to make payments, the city is not on the hook to pay bondholders, sources said. The Mets, including the stadium debt, owe lenders more than the $850 million that sources believe the team is worth.

metirish Feb 17 2011 06:36 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Brian Lenihan is looking for a job , maybe he can get the Wilpon's a bailout.

Ceetar Feb 17 2011 07:09 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

i'd buy some Citi Field bonds..60cents? gimme 100.

The Second Spitter Feb 17 2011 08:59 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

batmagadanleadoff wrote: The Mets, including the stadium debt, owe lenders more than the $850 million that sources believe the team is worth. Which means there's a next to zero chance of a minority investor coming on-board. The only way Fred can entice a prospective investor is granting an offer of first refusal. Irony?

batmagadanleadoff Feb 22 2011 06:57 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Shirts for sale. Distressed.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 27 2011 10:20 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

The NY Post reports that the Wilpons and Katz are now willing to sell up to 49% of the team. The situation has gotten so bad that the Mets are now willing to sell up to a 49 percent stake in the franchise -- double what the owners had previously indicated. One more percentage point, and we'll have to change the name of this thread from minority stake to half share. Two more points and I'm havin' a party. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/quee ... &FEEDNAME=

Benjamin Grimm Feb 27 2011 11:03 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

I do think it will get there. It might get up to 100 per cent... or more!

Fman99 Feb 27 2011 01:44 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Gwreck wrote: When I think credibility and meaningful opinions that I value, I think Jim Cramer. The same guy who endorsed Lenny Dykstra's credibility about 10 years ago. So there you go.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 28 2011 10:48 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

batmagadanleadoff wrote: The NY Post reports that the Wilpons and Katz are now willing to sell up to 49% of the team. The situation has gotten so bad that the Mets are now willing to sell up to a 49 percent stake in the franchise -- double what the owners had previously indicated. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/quee ... &FEEDNAME= It's odd that the Post devoted only one sentence to the Mets willingness to sell 49% of the team, and even odder that no other media outlet is even so much as quoting the Post on this.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 28 2011 02:06 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

The NY Post reports that the Wilpons and Katz are now willing to sell up to 49% of the team. The situation has gotten so bad that the Mets are now willing to sell up to a 49 percent stake in the franchise -- double what the owners had previously indicated. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/quee ... &FEEDNAME= It's odd that the Post devoted only one sentence to the Mets willingness to sell 49% of the team, and even odder that no other media outlet is even so much as quoting the Post on this. In discussing the Bobby V-ownership-flight-of-fancy: The Guy What Murdered Ceetar's Puppy wrote: Mets principal owner Fred Wilpon announced his intention to explore the sale of 20 to 25 percent of the team because of financial issues. Steve Greenberg, the man picked by Wilpon to identify prospective buyers, since has stated a higher percentage could be sold as long as the Wilpons retained a controlling interest. I think it's more that the difference between 25 and 49 percent doesn't seem like much news anymore, in light of the other stuff surrounding it.

Ceetar Feb 28 2011 02:56 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

The NY Post reports that the Wilpons and Katz are now willing to sell up to 49% of the team. The situation has gotten so bad that the Mets are now willing to sell up to a 49 percent stake in the franchise -- double what the owners had previously indicated. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/quee ... &FEEDNAME= It's odd that the Post devoted only one sentence to the Mets willingness to sell 49% of the team, and even odder that no other media outlet is even so much as quoting the Post on this. In discussing the Bobby V-ownership-flight-of-fancy: The Guy What Murdered Ceetar's Puppy wrote: Mets principal owner Fred Wilpon announced his intention to explore the sale of 20 to 25 percent of the team because of financial issues. Steve Greenberg, the man picked by Wilpon to identify prospective buyers, since has stated a higher percentage could be sold as long as the Wilpons retained a controlling interest. I think it's more that the difference between 25 and 49 percent doesn't seem like much news anymore, in light of the other stuff surrounding it. This isn't really groundbreaking. (And a guy doesn't have to have killed my puppy to be an unprofessional clown) It was always assumed that it was going to be a negotiation around the sale. 20-25% becomes slightly more if say the buyer suggests he'd really like a third. As I imagine the absolute silence and the parts of SNY could possibly be negotiated should it be what needs to happen to get the deal done. Obviously the Wilpons want to sell as little as possible but still get the influx of cash they need, where as an investor is probably going to want as big a piece of the pie as he can get. The Wilpons repeatedly state they don't want to give up the majority, therefore 49% becomes to unstated cap.

Ashie62 Feb 28 2011 07:14 PM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Thw Wilpons need all the dough they can get. Who is going to buy a minority stake which equates into an investment in Wilpon. Geez, the stadium bonds are junk status. Freddy is going to have to sell a majority whether he likes it or not.

Valadius Mar 01 2011 05:39 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

The Post: They should change their name to the New York Debts. The cash-starved Mets are desperately seeking a new loan -- totaling tens of millions of dollars -- to cover their basic operating expenses, The Post has learned JPMorgan Chase -- which led the banks that loaned the team about $430 million last year -- is trying to recruit other institutions to join a syndicate to put together a new loan that would tide the Mets over until they sell a minority stake in the ballclub. The Mets' financial health has been imperiled by investments by its owner, Fred Wilpon, in Bernard Madoff's massive Ponzi scheme. How the hell could Freddie and Jeffy have gotten a $430 MILLION LOAN??? And now they want more? Enough. They've gotta go.

Edgy MD Mar 01 2011 05:56 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

That's what happens when you're building a ballpark and a cable TV network at the same time, and you can demonstrate expected revenues convincingly. It's not like the judgment of banks has shown itself to be clear in recent years. The full story for archive porpoises. De$perate Mets in new relief pitch Team's hand out for another huge loan By JOSH KOSMAN, MARK DeCAMBRE and DAN MANGAN Last Updated: 4:51 AM, March 1, 2011 They should change their name to the New York Debts. The cash-starved Mets are desperately seeking a new loan -- totaling tens of millions of dollars -- to cover their basic operating expenses, The Post has learned JPMorgan Chase -- which led the banks that loaned the team about $430 million last year -- is trying to recruit other institutions to join a syndicate to put together a new loan that would tide the Mets over until they sell a minority stake in the ballclub. The Mets' financial health has been imperiled by investments by its owner, Fred Wilpon, in Bernard Madoff's massive Ponzi scheme. A well-placed source said both the Mets and Major League Baseball are exerting strong pressure on JPMorgan to make that loan happen. The bank already has a tight relationship with MLB because it finances MLB operations. "They [JPMorgan] believe the Mets still have the capacity to borrow," a source said. But another source said, "Are you kidding me?" when told about the loan. "You don't lend into a distressed situation," that source said. "This is a very risky loan," with the team losing about $50 million a year. Revelations about the proposed new loan comes days after it was revealed that, in late 2010, the Wilpon family borrowed $25 million from Major League Baseball -- which had previously loaned the Mets $50 million. The $25 million was requested after the Wilpons learned that the bankruptcy trustee in the Madoff case was seeking up to $1 billion for alleged phony profits the family made in the scheme as well as punitive damages under the theory that they were sophisticated enough to know Madoff was a fraud. The Wilpons deny that allegation and say they were net losers in the scheme. Although the MLB's second loan pushed the Mets' total outstanding debt to $505 million, the team may still be worth about $800 million -- theoretically enough to provide collateral for more debt. The new JPMorgan-led loan would be made with the understanding that it would help the Queens team cover its operating costs -- including paying players who recently began spring training -- pending the planned sale. The Mets already have passed on to MLB the qualifications of more than a dozen groups of would-be buyers who are interested in purchasing less than 50 percent of the ballclub, leaving the Wilpons in place as team owners. After MLB vets those prospective purchasers, the team would then entertain offers. Last year, JPMorgan, with a syndicate that included Bank of America and Citigroup, refinanced $430 million of Mets debt despite concerns that the Wilpons lost a bundle with Madoff. Earlier this month, The Post revealed that the banks had been selling off some of that debt at a discount -- about 90 cents on the dollar -- to lower their exposure to the Mets. However, JPMorgan may be willing to offer a new loan to help the team avoid defaulting on the existing debt, which would force the bank to compete with other creditors to recoup money. The bank itself is being sued for $6.4 billion by Madoff bankruptcy trustee Irving Picard, who claims JPMorgan did business with Madoff for years despite numerous red flags that he was a crook. The bank denies those claims. Additional reporting by Joel Sherman and Dan Martin dan.mangan@nypost.com Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/de_p ... z1FLshIpzJ I like the "additional reporting by Joel Sherman" bit. He probably got the "Are you kidding me?" anonymous quote.

Ceetar Mar 01 2011 06:00 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

If there is anything we've learned about banks, it's not hard to believe they'd still be willing to lend the Mets money. In fact, I don't know if I'd be surprised if they were willing to lend Madoff money. So, if the Mets got money from a bank, would it negate the money they need from selling a percentage of the team? Is this one of those other options? or is it in addition to?

metirish Mar 01 2011 06:09 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

It's quite possible that the Mets will not meet various payroll obligations without this loan, NT a good working environment for any of the employees. If they secure this loan then how long before they need another? Mr Wilpon, Mr Katz and son of Fred please go, for the sake of the club go.

Edgy MD Mar 01 2011 07:22 AM Re: Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

Ceetar wrote: So, if the Mets got money from a bank, would it negate the money they need from selling a percentage of the team? Is this one of those other options? or is it in addition to? I'm guessing no, this wouldn't negate that. metirish wrote: It's quite possible that the Mets will not meet various payroll obligations without this loan, NT a good working environment for any of the employees. If they secure this loan then how long before they need another? Mr Wilpon, Mr Katz and son of Fred please go, for the sake of the club go. But I wouldn't go that far, either.